Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:44 am
Time: 11:44 am
Results for criminal justice policy
128 results foundAuthor: Mossman, Elaine Title: Responding to Sexual Violence: A Review of Literature on Good Practice Summary: This report responds to a request by the Ministry of Women's Affairs to the Crime and Justice Research Centre to conduct a critical literature review outlining international and New Zealand perspectives on good practice for services that respond to adult survivors of sexual violence. With regard to medical, criminal justice, mental health and support systems a different post-assault periods and in relation to diverse social and cultural groups, the specific objectives of this review were to: a) identify and critique good practice models within and across systems, internationally and in New Zealand; b) describe factors that promote good practice within and across systems; and c) identify New Zealand guidelines for dealing with adult victim/survivors of sexual violence. Details: Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Ministry of Women's Affairs, 2009 Source: Crime and Justice Research Centre; University of Wellington Year: 2009 Country: New Zealand URL: Shelf Number: 117382 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicySexual ViolenceVictims |
Author: Tomkin, Jean Title: Orphans of Justice: In Search of the Best Interests of the Child When a Parent is Imprisoned: A Legal Analysis Summary: In response to the increasing body of research examining the impact of parental imprisonment on children, this report undertakes to address how this is affecting the court decisions. Of concern is how judges are utilizing developing understandings of a child's best interests to interpret the international standard guaranteeing the child's rights. This paper examines case law and practice around the world in regards to these issues. Details: Geneva: Quaker United Nations Office, 2009 Source: Year: 2009 Country: Switzerland URL: Shelf Number: 116263 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyFamilies of InmatesHuman RightsJuveniles |
Author: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Title: Handbook on Criminal Justice Responses to Terrorism Summary: This handbook aims to provide law enforcement and criminal justice officials with an accessible guide to assist them in dealing with some of the key issues that they face in their efforts to respond to terrorist and related crimes. It reviews the many challenges encountered by the various components of the criminal justice system in the prevention, investigation, prosecution and detention of alleged or convicted perpetrators of terrorist crimes. It offers guidance based on international standards and generally accepted good practices. Details: New York: United Nations, 2009 Source: Criminal Justice Handbook Series Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 116199 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyTerrorism |
Author: United States. Executive Office of the President Title: Cyberspace Policy Review: Assuring a Trusted and Resilient Information and Communications Infrastructure Summary: The President directed a comprehensive review to assess the United States' policies and structures for cybersecurity. This paper summarizes the conclusions of the review team, which was composed of government cybersecurity experts with input from a cross-section of industry, academia, the civil liberties and privacy communities, State governments, international partners, and the Legislative and Executive Branches. Cybersecurity policy includes strategy, policy, and standards regarding the security of and operations in cyberspace, and encompasses the full range of threat reduction, vulnerability reduction, deterrence, international engagement, incident response, resiliency, and law enforcement, diplomacy, military, and intelligence missions as they relate to the security and stability of the global information and communications infrastructure. Details: Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President of the United States, 2009 Source: Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 155194 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCybercrime |
Author: Jan-Khan, Manaware Title: Equality Impact Assessment of Improving Health, Supporting Justice Summary: This report was produced in response to the need to develop a new strategic delivery plan for health and criminal justice, incorporating the recommendations from the previous report, "Improving Health, Supporting Justice: A National Delivery Plan." The delivery plan examines how services can work to ensure that offenders receive appropriate, sensitive and effective care throughout their transitions and during the criminal justice pathway. Details: London: UK Department of Health, 2009 Source: October 2009, Gateway Reference 12632 Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 117373 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyHealth |
Author: Victoria. Auditor-General Title: Preparedness to Respond to Terrorism Incidents: Essential Services and Critical Infrastructure Summary: The objective of this audit was to examine the state's preparedness to respond to terrorism incidents, relating to essential services and critical infrastructure. This audit examined the governance agreements established to assist operators of essential services and owners/operators of critical infrastructure to respond to terrorism incidents. The activities of selected Victorian government agencies with roles and responsibilites were examined, including how they consulted and interacted with owners/operators of critical infrastructure and operators of declared essential serivces. The audit also considere funding for counter-terrorism initiatives including for preventing, responding to and recovering from terrorist attacks. The activities of Victoria Police and seven Victorian government departments were examined. Details: Melbourne: Victorian Government Printer, 2009 Source: Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 114814 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyTerrorism |
Author: Collins, Jon Title: Transforming Justice: New Approaches to the Criminal Justice System Summary: This collection of essays is intended to stimulate new thinking on criminal justice policy in the UK. The criminal justice system is in crisis, with severe funding cuts in both the prisons and probation services putting additional pressure on a system that is already functioning at the very edge of its capacity. In response, authors propose a series of potential reforms that could have a significant impact on the criminal justice system, ranging from the introduction of justice reinvestment or restorative justice to creating an equivalent of the Monetary Policy Committee or the National Institute for Clinical Excellence for criminal justice policy. This collection of essays is intended to provide fresh lines of thinking for politicians, policy makers and penal reformers alike. Details: London: Criminal Justice Alliance, 2009. 79p. Source: Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 117799 Keywords: Criminal Justice Policy |
Author: New Zealand. Law Commission. Title: Controlling and regulating drugs Summary: This issues paper traces the history of drug policy and regulation in New Zealand and reviews the current approach to drug control and regulation. Details: Wellington, New Zealand: Law Commission, 2010, 402p. Source: Internet Source Year: 2010 Country: New Zealand URL: Shelf Number: 117811 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyDrug OffensesDrug PolicyDrug Regulation |
Author: McNeill, Fergus Title: Culture, Change and Community Justice Summary: This report reviews the international research on the management of change within community justice organizations. It specifically explores: (1) The nature and character of occupational, professional and organizational cultures in community justice; (2) How such cultures respond to, accommodate and resist change processes; (3) How and why processes of change succeed and fail in criminal justice organizations; and (4) Effective approaches to the management of change in criminal justice. The review of change management is located within a wider analysis of what is known about occupational, professional and organizational cultures within criminal justice and within public sector organizations more generally, and of how practitioners respond to policy changes. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research, 2010. 46p. Source: Report No. 02/2010 Year: 2010 Country: International URL: Shelf Number: 118534 Keywords: Change ManagementCommunity JusticeCriminal Justice OrganizationsCriminal Justice Policy |
Author: Constitution Project, Georgetown Public Policy Institute Title: Smart on Crime: Recommendations for the Next Administration and Congress Summary: After the 2008 elections, America’s policymakers will take a fresh look at the criminal justice system, which so desperately needs their attention. To assist with that review, leaders and experts from all aspects of the criminal justice community spent months collaboratively identifying key issues and gathering policy advice into one comprehensive set of recommendations for the new administration and Congress. This catalogue is the fruit of those labors. Details: Washington, DC: The Constitution Project, 2008. 207p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 114880 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice SystemCriminal Justice, Administration of |
Author: Aos, Steve Title: WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Tool for States: Examining Policy Options in Sentencing and Corrections Summary: Can knowledge about “what works” to reduce crime be used to help states achieve a win-win outcome of lower crime and lower taxpayer spending? The Washington State Institute for Public Policy has constructed an analytical tool for the Washington legislature to help identify evidence-based sentencing and programming policy options to reduce crime and taxpayer criminal justice costs. This report describes the tool (as of August 2010) in detail and illustrates its use by applying it to two hypothetical sentencing policy options in Washington State. The tool assesses benefits, costs, and risks. Results from the two hypothetical examples point to possible win-win policy combinations. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2010. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Document No. 10-08-1201: Accessed October 8, 2010 at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/10-08-1201.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/10-08-1201.pdf Shelf Number: 119882 Keywords: CorrectionsCost-Benefit AnalysisCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PolicyEvidence-Based PoliciesSentencing |
Author: Harriott, Anthony Title: Controlling Violent Crime: Models and Policy Options Summary: The increase in the levels of crime and violence in Jamaica has been traumatic for the nation’s citizens. The scourge of crime has penetrated even our schools as the youth solve their problems in an aggressively confrontational manner which too often has ended in the death of one of the contenders. The problem of crime is not confined to Jamaica but is one that the entire region has had to confront. This Lecture, which will focus on models and policy options for the control of crime, is timely and should provide practical recommendations to contribute to the lessing of crime in Jamaica and the Caribbean. Details: Kingston, Jamaica: GraceKennedy Foundation, 2009. 96p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 19, 2010 at: http://www.gracekennedy.com/files/doc/GRACE-Lecture-2009.pdf.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Jamaica URL: http://www.gracekennedy.com/files/doc/GRACE-Lecture-2009.pdf.pdf Shelf Number: 120018 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyViolenceViolent Crime |
Author: Aos, Steve Title: Fight Crime and Save Money: Development of an Investment Tool for States to Study Sentencing and Corrections Public Policy Options: Progress Report Summary: Can knowledge about “what works” to reduce crime be used to help a state achieve a win-win outcome of: (1) lower crime, and (2) lower taxpayer spending? This progress report describes the work underway by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) to develop an analytical tool for Washington, and perhaps other states, to identify evidence-based policy options to reduce crime rates and lower the taxpayer costs of the criminal justice system. The Pew Charitable Trusts contracted with WSIPP to: (1) develop the tool, (2) apply it to the policy process currently underway in Washington State, and (3) help Pew make the tool available to other states. We do not present “bottom-line” results in this report. Rather, this progress report simply describes the structure of the tool being constructed. The current plan calls for initial estimates by August 2010. In addition, the tool will be used to support the work of the legislatively directed study being conducted by the Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2010. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2010 at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/10-04-1201.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/10-04-1201.pdf Shelf Number: 120179 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PolicyEconomicsEvidence-Based PolicySentencing Policies |
Author: Drago, Francesco Title: Indirect Effects of a Policy Altering Criminal Behaviour: Evidence from the Italian Prison Experiment Summary: We exploit the Collective Clemency Bill passed by the Italian Parliament in July 2006 to evaluate the indirect effects of a policy that randomly commutes actual sentences to expected sentences for 40 percent of the Italian prison population. We estimate the direct and indirect impact of the residual sentence – corresponding to a month less time served in prison associated with a month of expected sentence – at the date of release on individual recidivism. Using prison, nationality and region of residence to construct reference groups of former inmates, we find large indirect effects of this policy. In particular, we find that the reduction in the individuals’ recidivism due to an increase in their peers’ residual sentence is at least as large as their response to an increase in their own residual sentence. From this result we estimate a social multiplier in crime of 2. Details: Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor, 2010. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: IZA Discussion Paper No. 5414: Accessed February 1, 2011 at: http://ftp.iza.org/dp5414.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Italy URL: http://ftp.iza.org/dp5414.pdf Shelf Number: 120649 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyInmatesRecidivismSentencing (Italy) |
Author: Clement, Marshall Title: The National Summit on Justice Reinvestment and Public Safety: addressing Recidivism, Crime, and Corrections Spending Summary: On January 27, 2010, the first National Summit on Justice Reinvestment and Public Safety was held at the U.S. Capitol. It examined how some states and local governments are successfully changing their crime and corrections policies to be more effective and fiscally responsible through evidence-based policies and practices. Leading researchers and experts in law enforcement, courts, corrections, reentry, and other community-based services were brought together to present the latest science, statistics, and innovations on reducing recidivism and corrections costs. The summit was convened by the Pew Center on the States, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Public Welfare Foundation, and the Council of State Governments Justice Center. This summit report summarizes the rich information presented during the conference — highlighting the promising practices and the latest thinking on criminal justice policy. This information is meant to help spur the expansion of data-driven practices. It is our hope that this summit report will serve as a “best practices” manual for policymakers and corrections professionals around the country as we work to improve our corrections system. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2011. 98p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 14, 2011 at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/pdf/CSG_JusticeReinvestmentSummitReport.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/pdf/CSG_JusticeReinvestmentSummitReport.pdf Shelf Number: 120761 Keywords: Costs of CrimeCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformExpenditures in Criminal JusticeRecidivism |
Author: Porter, Nicole D. Title: The State of Sentencing 2010: Developments in Policy and Practice Summary: Today, 7.2 million men and women are under correctional supervision. Of this total, five million are monitored in the community on probation or parole and 2.3 million are incarcerated in prisons or jails. As a result the nation maintains the highest rate of incarceration in the world at 743 per 100,000 population. The scale of the correctional population results from a mix of crime rates and legislative and administrative policies that vary by state. In recent years, lawmakers have struggled to find the resources to maintain state correctional systems; 46 states are facing budget deficits in the current fiscal year, a situation that is likely to continue, according to the National Governors Association. Many states are looking closely at ways to reduce correctional costs as they seek to address limited resources. States like Kansas, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York have successfully reduced their prison populations in recent years in an effort to control costs and effectively manage prison capacity. Overall, prison populations declined in 24 states during 2009, by 48,000 persons, or 0.7 percent. During 2010, state legislatures in at least 23 states and the District of Columbia adopted 35 criminal justice policies that may contribute to reductions in the prison population and eliminate barriers to reentry while promoting effective approaches to public safety. This report provides an overview of recent policy reforms in the areas of sentencing, probation and parole, drug policy, the prison census count, collateral consequences, and juvenile justice. Highlights include: South Carolina equalized penalties for crack and powder cocaine offenses as part of a sentencing reform package that garnered bipartisan support. New Jersey modified its mandatory sentencing law that applies to convictions in “drug free school zones,” and now authorizes judges to impose sentences below the mandatory minimum in appropriate cases. Prior to the reform, more than 3,600 defendants a year were convicted under the statute, 96% of whom were African American or Latino. During 2010, state legislatures in at least 23 states and the District of Columbia adopted 35 criminal justice policies that may contribute to reductions in the prison population and eliminate barriers to reentry while promoting effective approaches to public safety. This report provides an overview of recent policy reforms in the areas of sentencing, probation and parole, drug policy, the prison census count, collateral consequences, and juvenile justice. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2011. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 28, 2011 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/publications/Final%20State%20of%20the%20Sentencing%202010.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/publications/Final%20State%20of%20the%20Sentencing%202010.pdf Shelf Number: 120882 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCorrectionsCriminal Justice PolicyInmatesParolePrisonersProbationSentencing |
Author: Bartlett, Tess Title: The Power of Penal Populism: Public Influences on Penal and Sentencing Policy from 1999 to 2008 Summary: This thesis explains the rise and power of penal populism in contemporary New Zealand society. It argues that the rise of penal populism can be attributed to social, economic and political changes that have taken place in New Zealand since the postwar years. These changes undermined the prevailing penal-welfare logic that had dominated policymaking in this area since 1945. It examines the way in which ‘the public’ became more involved in the administration of penal policy from 1999 to 2008. The credibility given to a law and order referendum in 1999, which drew attention to crime victims and ‘tough on crime’ discourse, exemplified their new role. In its aftermath, greater influence was given to the public and groups speaking on its behalf. The referendum also influenced political discourse in New Zealand, with politicians increasingly using ‘tough on crime’ policies in election campaigns as it was believed that this was what ‘the public’ wanted when it came to criminal justice issues. As part of these developments, the thesis examines the rise of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, a unique law and order pressure group that advocates for victims’ rights and the harsh treatment of offenders. The Trust became an increasingly authoritative voice in both the public and political arena, as public sentiments came to overrule expert knowledge in the administration of penal policy. Ultimately, it argues that the power of penal populism is so strong in New Zealand that attempts to resist it are likely to come to little, unless these forces that brought it to prominence can be addressed and negated. To date, this has not happened. Details: Wellington, NZ: School of Social and Cultural Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, 2009. 136p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 5, 2011 at: http://www.rethinking.org.nz/assets/Newsletter_PDF/Issue_84/T%20Bartlett%20Thesis%202009.pdf Year: 2009 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.rethinking.org.nz/assets/Newsletter_PDF/Issue_84/T%20Bartlett%20Thesis%202009.pdf Shelf Number: 121249 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyImprisonmentPrisonsPublic AttitudesPunishmentSentencing (New Zealand) |
Author: Silvestri, Arianna, ed. Title: Lessons for the Coalition: An End of Term Report on New Labour and Criminal Justice Summary: In a collection of essays by leading UK thinkers and commentators, the report Lessons for the Coalition, critiques the many innovations and the numerous failings on criminal justice during Labour's period in office. It also offers pointers to the coalition government of what not to do and on what needs changing. Professor Andrew Sanders of the University of Birmingham warns that one third of the prison population is likely to be serving indefinite prison sentences by 2012. His concerns are shared by the President of the Prison Governors Association Eoin McLennan-Murray, who describes Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection (1) as a `stain on our criminal justice system' that has left an `indelible scar on the prison service'. McLennan-Murray also critiques the original structure of Labour's National Offender Management Service (2) as `a dysfunctional duplicate of already large prison service headquarters' that has been `very successful at increasing the level of bureaucracy'. Professor Andrew Ashworth of the University of Oxford also expresses concern about Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection, describing them as `a policy-making disaster'. He calls on the coalition to undertake some `fundamental re-thinking' on sentencing. This should include a reassessment of the roles of the police, Crown Prosecution Service and magistrates' courts; a reaffirmation of the right to a fair trial; a re-examination of justifications for the UK's high imprisonment rate and a commitment to evidence-based policy. On the coalition's plans for a `rehabilitation revolution', David Faulkner, a former senior Home Office civil servant, argues that `no connection have been made between the "rehabilitation revolution" and the social conditions... which would enable it to take place, including the consequences which might follow from the government's programmes in other areas of social policy such as employment, housing and support for families'. Faulkner goes on to argue that `one of the test for the coalition government... will be the extent to which it can bring together the political vision of a "big society" and the professional and managerial wisdom that is needed to "make things work"'. Other contributions to Lessons for the coalition include: •Professor Rod Morgan, former chair of the Youth Justice Board, predicts that `cut-backs in "law and order" expenditure during the period 2011-2014 will almost certainly see a continuation of, possibly an increase in, the policy of imposing criminal sanctions out-of-court by the police and CPS'. •Dr Annette Ballinger of Keele University concludes that Labour's initiatives on violence against women were failures `leaving women exposed to unchallenged and unchecked male violence'. •On control orders (3) Professor Andrew Sanders argues that in most cases they have been used to disrupt `groups with only the most speculative and tangential relationship with terrorism'. •Professor Tim Hope of the University of Salford argues that Labour's `achievement with the crime trend has been less to do with its efforts and more to do with its skill in rigging the examination system'. •Professor Reece Walters of The Open University argues that `the so-called environmental successes under New Labour are already threatened by the proposals of the coalition... where environmental issues, such as green house gas emissions have been overshadowed by economic recovery and fiscal restraint'. Details: London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2011. 87p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 11, 2011 at: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/publication_download_form_1830.html Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/publication_download_form_1830.html Shelf Number: 121296 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems (U.K.) |
Author: Petteruti, Amanda Title: Finding Direction: Expanding Criminal Justice Options by Considering Policies of Other Nations Summary: When it comes to criminal justice, there is much to be gleaned from the policies and practices in other democratic nations. Other nations protect public safety without imprisoning as large a percentage of their population, handle law-breaking behavior in ways less reliant on incarceration, and have different approaches to addressing complex social issues. A country’s criminal justice policies and practices do not exist within a vacuum: they are a product of the larger social systems and political realities to which they are inextricably tied. For this reason, some policymakers may think other countries are too fundamentally different than the U.S. for these policies to be adopted. This report compares and contrasts the criminal justice policies and social, economic, and governmental structures of five countries – Australia, Canada, England and Wales, Finland and Germany – to the United States. While each nation has a unique set of circumstances and realities, each has enough fundamental similarities to the U.S. that cross-national policy adoption could be considered. An evaluation of the various similarities and differences can broaden the existing dialogue and create more momentum for the types of systemic reforms that will reduce the burden of over-incarceration on communities, states, and the country as a whole. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2011. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2011 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/research/2322 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/research/2322 Shelf Number: 121458 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems |
Author: Downey, P. Mitchell Title: A Bayesian Meta-Analysis of Drug Court Cost-Effectiveness Summary: In recent years, meta-analysis has been widely adopted as a means of informing sound policy decisions. A particularly successful application of meta-analysis has been in the evaluation of the effectiveness of new medical interventions, particularly the results of new drug trials. The goal of this type of study is to draw a general conclusion from the results of many clinical trials of the same drug which often produce very different results to determine whether the drug is safe enough and ffective enough to be made available to the public. Over the past two decades, meta-analysis has become increasingly common in the study of programs and policies designed to reduce crime. Over the last decade, researchers have begun to combine meta-analyses with cost-benefit analysis. Meta-analysis answers the question: does the intervention produce positive outcomes? Cost-benefit analysis moves beyond this question to ask whether an effective intervention creates enough of a benefit to justify the cost. Thus, the combined meta-analysis and cost-benefit analysis attempt to answer the question: What is the most cost-effective way to increase public safety? DCPI has developed an empirical model that combines meta-analysis and cost-benefit analysis to help answer this question. The DCPI model uses Bayesian methods to test whether the expected outcomes of implementing a policy or combination of policies in Washington, D.C., is worth the investment. The DCPI model will incorporate both the costs of delivering services in Washington, D.C., and the benefits of those services to District citizens. In particular, the DCPI model will incorporate benefits to D.C. citizens from reductions in the risk of becoming a victim of crime. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate how Bayesian statistics can be used in conjunction with meta cost-benefit analysis. To do this, we use data from 86 drug court evaluations previously coded for metaanalysis (Shaffer 2009). We then follow Drake, Aos and Miller (2009) in the development of estimates of the Washington, DC specific costs, recidivism rates and criminal justice system resource utilization. The calculation of the price of crime to victims is drawn from Roman (2009). In this paper, we first describe a brief history of the use of a combined cost-benefit and meta-analytic model. We then discuss the advantages of using Bayesian statistics, rather than traditional methods, for applied policy research. Next, we apply this method to a practical policy problem: should the District of Columbia implement a drug court? We chose drug courts as our beta test of the model because there have been several prior meta-analyses of drug courts which allows us to assess the reliability of our effect size estimates. We discuss the Bayesian methods used in this analysis and our preliminary findings. We conclude with a discussion of how differences between our results and prior results should be interpreted. We note that the goal of this research is to validate the model, in particular to compare effect sizes generated here with effect sizes generated by other authors using the same data. In this model iteration, only the prices of treating District of Columbia residents are drawn from DC data. Thus, the findings in this paper should not be interpreted as an evaluation of SCDIP. Future research will re-populate these models using DC-specific data which will allow us to estimate the optimal size and composition of the current drug court - the Superior Court Drug Intervention Program (SCDIP). Ultimately, the model can be used to make evidence-based decisions when policymakers are confronted with difficult choices between successful programs when the resources to fund those programs are limited. Details: Washington, DC: District of Columbia Crime Policing Institute, Urban Institute, 2010. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 3, 2011 at: http://www.dccrimepolicy.org/costbenefitanalysis/images/12-10-Bayesian-Cost-Benefit-Drug-Court_2.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.dccrimepolicy.org/costbenefitanalysis/images/12-10-Bayesian-Cost-Benefit-Drug-Court_2.pdf Shelf Number: 121586 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisCriminal Justice PolicyDrug Courts |
Author: Levin, Marc Title: Texas Criminal Justice Reform: Lower Crime, Lower Cost Summary: In recent years, Texas has strengthened alternatives to incarceration for adults and juveniles, achieving significant reductions in crime while avoiding more than $2 billion in taxpayer costs that would have been incurred had Texas simply constructed more than 17,000 prison beds that a 2007 projection indicated would be needed. Similarly, juvenile crime has markedly declined at the same time Texas has reduced the number of youths in state institutions by 52.9 percent. By building on these successes in a challenging budget environment, policymakers can continue delivering improved results for public safety and taxpayers. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation, Center for Effective Justice, 2010. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Perspective: Accessed May 17, 2011 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2010-01-PP04-justicereinvestment-ml.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2010-01-PP04-justicereinvestment-ml.pdf Shelf Number: 121734 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCosts of Crime (Texas)Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice Policy |
Author: Ball, W. David Title: Tough on Crime on the State's Dime Summary: California’s prisons are dangerously and unconstitutionally overcrowded; as a result of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Plata v. Schwarzenegger, the state must act to reduce its prison population or face court-ordered prisoner releases. The state’s plans to reduce overcrowding are centered around what it calls criminal justice “realignment”, whereby California will send a portion of the state prison population to county facilities. The plan faces opposition from county officials, who see it as pushing the state’s problem on to the counties. But what if state prison overcrowding is really a county problem? I argue that state prison overcrowding is due in large part to county decisions about how to deal with crime. Using data from 2000-2009, I will show that California’s counties use state prison resources at dramatically different rates, and, moreover, that the counties which use state prisons the most have below-average crime rates. The contribution the Article makes, then, is twofold. First, it reinforces that incarceration in state prisons is one policy choice among many, not an inexorable reaction to violent crime. Counties can and do make different choices about how to respond to violent crime, including the extent to which they use prison. Second, the Article demonstrates why localities are crucial - and critically underexamined - contributors to state prison populations. Decisions are made at local levels about prosecution, investigation, plea bargaining, and sentencing, and these decisions are made by officials who are either elected locally (such as DA’s, judges, and sheriffs) or appointed locally (police and probation officers). Local policies and policymakers affect the state’s corrections budget, even though the state has no say in designing or implementing these policies. State officials must take these local differences into account, and create incentives for counties to behave differently. The problem is that it is difficult to distinguish between justifiable, crime-driven incarceration and optional, policy-driven incarceration. I propose a new metric for distinguishing between these two types of incarceration, one which defines justified incarceration in terms of violent crime. This would allow the state to manage local usage of state prison resources without either penalizing crime-ridden areas or rewarding prison-happy ones. This Article is the first of two articles dealing with the state/county prison relationship. While this Article quantifies the ways in which the extent of local prison admissions is not necessarily a function of the violent crime rate, a second Article will examine whether, given these differences, it makes sense for the state to subsidize county commitments to prison. Details: Unpublished Working Paper, 2011. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 10, 2011 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871427 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871427 Shelf Number: 122349 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyDecision-MakingPrison OvercrowdingPrisons (California)Violent Crime |
Author: Council of State Governments, Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in Ohio: Summary Report of Analyses Summary: In late 2008, Governor Ted Strickland, Senate President Bill Harris (R-Ashland), then House Speaker Jon Husted (R-Kettering), and former Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Moyer requested technical assistance from the Council of State Governments Justice Center to help develop a statewide policy framework to reduce spending on corrections and reinvest in strategies to increase public safety. In January 2010, to guide the CSG Justice Center’s analysis of the state’s criminal justice system and development of policy options, Governor Strickland, Senate President Harris, current House Speaker Armond Budish (D-Beachwood), Senate Minority Leader Capri Cafaro (D-Hubbard), and House Minority Leader William Batchelder (R-Medina) announced the “Justice Reinvestment Working Group,” which Senator Bill Seitz (R-Green Township) and Representative Mike Moran (D-Hudson) co-chair and which includes a bipartisan, inter-branch group of state lawmakers, state agency directors, and Ohio Supreme Court officials. The CSG Justice Center collected and analyzed vast amounts of state criminal justice, mental health, and substance abuse data, drawing on information systems maintained by the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, the Department of Mental Health, the Department of Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services, the Supreme Court, and county probation departments—as well as the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. In addition to these quantitative analyses, the CSG Justice Center convened dozens of focus groups, interviewing hundreds of people from across the criminal justice system, including judges, prosecuting attorneys, defense attorneys, law enforcement, probation and parole/post-release control, community corrections administrators, and others. Additional stakeholders consulted included victim advocates, county officials, behavioral health treatment providers, and many others. This report provides a brief summary of the preliminary findings. The working group will review these findings to begin developing a policy framework for the General Assembly’s consideration. Details: New York: Justice Center, Council of State Governments, 2010. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 26, 2011 at: http://www.opd.ohio.gov/RC_Reports/ohio_conference_report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.opd.ohio.gov/RC_Reports/ohio_conference_report.pdf Shelf Number: 122551 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice SystemsCriminal Justice, Administration of (Ohio) |
Author: Rosenberg, Jennifer Title: Balanced Justice: Cost-Benefit Analysis and Criminal Justice Policy Summary: Crime and justice are not usually associated with cost-benefit analysis. But they should be. A growing body of research shows how powerful the use of economic analysis can be when applied to criminal justice policy. Public safety can be prioritized and even improved at a lower cost than traditional incarceration, using techniques like behavioral therapy for young offenders, intensive supervision, or a new iteration of a drug court. In an economic downturn, when state funding is scarce and legislatures are on the lookout for even the smallest of budget cuts, what could be more compelling than better results with a smaller price tag? Cost-benefit analysis can give state and federal lawmakers a more targeted way to identify and adopt sentencing structures and preventative programs that will save billions of taxpayer dollars without compromising public safety. Around the country, research findings are being compiled and analyzed to identify policies that achieve desired outcomes and offer taxpayers high rates of return on their investments. In many cases, credible research shows that the administrative costs of implementing a new program can be dwarfed by future benefits. These benefits spring from not only reductions in crime and avoided sentencing costs, but also increased lifetime earnings and health outcomes. In these and other ways, cost-benefit analysis injects data-driven methods and evidence-based practices into criminal justice policymaking. The outcome: comprehensive, line-item comparisons of criminal justice policy alternatives. Once each policy or program option is subjected to cost-benefit analysis, the results are presented side-by-side allowing lawmakers to select that which promises to generate the greatest net benefits. Cost-benefit analysis can be applied to a range of programs, from sentencing and parole guidelines, to family therapy programs targeting “at risk” youth. There are also challenges to utilizing cost-benefit analysis, including the need for additional research and funding for that research. Yet momentum is building and decisionmakers throughout the justice system — from sentencing boards, to judges, to prosecutors, to legislators—are seeing the fiscal savings and public safety improvements that cost-benefit analysis can provide. Details: New York: Institute for Policy Integrity, New York University School of Law, 2011. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief No. 11: Accessed October 21, 2011 at: http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Balanced_Justice.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Balanced_Justice.pdf Shelf Number: 123080 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice Policy |
Author: Georgia. Special Council on Criminal Justice Reform for Georgians Title: Report of the Special Council on Criminal Justice Reform for Georgians Summary: Seeking new ways to protect public safety while controlling the growth of prison costs, the 2011 Georgia General Assembly passed HB 265 to establish the inter-branch Special Council on Criminal Justice Reform for Georgians (Council). Beginning in the summer of 2011, the Council members began a detailed analysis of Georgia’s sentencing and corrections data and solicited input from a wide range of stakeholders to identify ways to improve public safety for the citizens of Georgia. The Council used that information to develop tailored policy options, including proposals that would invest a portion of any savings from averted prison spending into evidence-based strategies to improve public safety by strengthening probation and parole supervision and reducing recidivism. During the past two decades, the prison population in Georgia has more than doubled to nearly 56,000 inmates. As a result, Georgia has one of the highest proportions of adult residents under correctional control. This growth has come at a substantial cost to Georgia’s taxpayers. Today the state spends more than $1 billion annually on corrections, up from $492 million in FY 1990. Yet despite this growth in prison, Georgia taxpayers haven’t received a better public safety return on their corrections dollars: the recidivism rate has remained unchanged at nearly 30 percent throughout the past decade. If current policies remain in place, analysis indicates that Georgia’s prison population will rise by another 8 percent to reach nearly 60,000 inmates by 2016, presenting the state with the need to spend an additional $264 million to expand capacity. The Council’s analysis revealed that inmate population growth is due in large part to policy decisions about who is being sent to prison and how long they stay. The data shows that drug and property offenders represent almost 60 percent of all admissions. Importantly, many of these offenders are identified as lower-risk. In 2010, Georgia courts sent more than 5,000 lower-risk drug and property offenders to prison who have never been to prison before, accounting for 25 percent of all admissions. Looking more closely at drug admissions, more than 3,200 offenders are admitted to prison each year on a drug possession conviction (as opposed to a sales or trafficking conviction), and two-thirds of these inmates are assessed as being a lower-risk to re-offend. The Council also identified several challenges to the state’s ability to effectively supervise offenders on probation and parole and provide interventions that can reduce the likelihood of reoffending. Since 2000, Georgia’s felony probation population has grown by 22 percent to 156,000 and the state’s parole population has grown by 9 percent to 22,000. Currently, probation and parole agencies operate effective programs using evidence-based tools to identify and supervise higher risk offenders. But the Council’s analysis shows that these options are limited and supervision agencies do not have the resources required to supervise offenders adequately. With greater investment in these and other programs and expansion to additional sites to serve more offenders, the state can reduce recidivism and create viable sentencing options for judges that can achieve better public safety outcomes at a lower cost. This report provides analysis and options for policymakers to consider. These policy options increase public safety and avert the growth currently projected for the state’s prison population. The Council considered these recommendations and options and, despite not reaching consensus on every one, agreed to forward the report to the legislature for consideration and action in the 2012 legislative session. The Council recommends that where potential savings are achieved, a portion should be reinvested into those options proven to reduce recidivism and improve public safety. These include expanding the availability of drug and other accountability courts and strengthening community supervision. The Council also recommends investing in effective information and performance measurement systems. Many of the policy proposals in this report focus on improving community-based supervision, sanctions and services as well as other practices proven to reduce recidivism, which are essential to improving public safety. Some of these proposals will require investment by the state. In order to allow for this reinvestment, the policy proposals in this report provide the legislature with options to avert much if not all of the projected growth in the prison population and corresponding costs over the next five years. Details: Atlanta, GA: The Special Council, 2011. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 26, 2011 at: http://www.legis.ga.gov/Documents/GACouncilReport-FINALDRAFT.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.legis.ga.gov/Documents/GACouncilReport-FINALDRAFT.pdf Shelf Number: 123450 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems (Georgia, U.S.) |
Author: Social Development, Republic of South Africa Title: Integrated Social Crime Prevention Strategy Summary: Preventing crime has been a priority for all government departments and culminated in the launching of the NCPS in 1996. The NCPS emphasises the prevention of crime, rather than entirely relying on the criminal justice process to arrest and convict offenders. It is also based on the idea that the South African Police Service (SAPS) alone cannot reduce crime. Communities, NGOs, CBOs, FBOs and the respective government departments are equally responsible for reducing crime. The NCPS has laid a foundation that provides regulations to various relevant departments to develop strategies that are aligned to existing approaches so as to avoid duplication of services. In dealing with crime, more emphasis is placed on an inter-sectoral and comprehensive approach. The NCPS also provides guidance to individual stakeholders on different programmes, as it is the result of an extensive process of research and analysis, and has drawn on international experiences. The role and responsibilities of government departments is, however to deal with difficult conditions facing children, youth, men and women, specifically those that relate to criminal activity. Concerted efforts need to be directed at addressing the underlying causes of delinquency, violence and crime, rather than reacting to symptoms and emergency needs. The provision of services, such as basic education, healthcare, job opportunities and recreation in rural and urban areas will contribute to children’s early growth, development, functioning and progress in society. There is, therefore, a dire need to provide integrated and coordinated programmes through the guidance of the Integrated Social Crime Prevention Strategy. The rationale for developing and implementing the Integrated Social Crime Prevention Strategy is to enable the government departments to respond to crime-related issues in a coordinated and focused manner, specifically looking at issues causing crime. The strategy will also promote joint efforts for creating a common understanding and vision on how to combat crime, bringing together concerted interventions within government departments as crucial initiatives for social crime prevention. Details: South Africa: Social Development Department, 2011. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 29, 2012 at http://www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=156928 Year: 2011 Country: South Africa URL: http://www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=156928 Shelf Number: 123867 Keywords: Crime Prevention (South Africa)Criminal Justice AdministrationCriminal Justice Policy |
Author: Prison Reform Trust Title: Public Want Offenders to Make Amends Summary: As the full social and economic cost of the recent riots in English cities is revealed, people will be looking to our courts to deliver justice in the weeks and months ahead and to nationally and locally elected politicians to agree on how best to prevent crime and disorder in future. The results of an ICM telephone poll of 1,000 members of the public across Great Britain, conducted one month after the disturbances, show overwhelming popular support for constructive ways in which offenders can make amends to victims for the harm they have caused. A huge majority of those surveyed (94%) support opportunities for offenders to do unpaid work in the community, as part of their sentence, to pay back for what they have done. Restorative measures, giving victims the opportunity to inform offenders of the harm caused and a say in how the offender can best make amends, attracted strong support. Lower income groups, who are more likely to be victims of crime, are most in favour of adopting community payback and a restorative justice approach. While 84% feel that better supervision of young people by parents would be effective in preventing crime and disorder, and the vast majority back better mental health care (80%) or making amends to victims (79%), fewer than two thirds (65%) believe a prison sentence would be effective. One in four feels expressly that it would not be effective in preventing crime and disorder. A clear majority of people surveyed by ICM is in favour of the courts having a range of measures available for offenders to make amends to victims. With a justice bill before parliament, the poll indicates that there is scope for a profound change in the way we respond to crime that would both improve victim satisfaction and reduce reoffending. Details: London: Prison Reform Trust, 2011. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 10, 2012 at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Riots%20poll%20briefing%20lo.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Riots%20poll%20briefing%20lo.pdf Shelf Number: 124035 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyPublic Opinion (U.K.)Punishment |
Author: Danelo, David J. Title: Toward a U.S.-Mexico Security Strategy: The Geopolitics of Northern Mexico and the Implications for U.S. Policy Summary: Since Mexican President Felipe Calderón took office in December 2006, Mexico’s drug war has taken over 30,000 lives, destabilized the U.S.-Mexico border, and become a security crisis for the North American continent. Two years ago, a December 2008 Pentagon report warned about the strategic consequences for the United States of a rapid collapse of two nations: Pakistan and Mexico. “The Mexican possibility might seem less likely,” said the report, “but the government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault by drug cartels.” Any sudden collapse would require a U.S. response “based on the serious implications for homeland security alone.” This scenario has not come to pass, and a full scale collapse of Mexico remains unlikely. That said, Mexico’s security situation has direct consequences in the United States. Along the U.S.-Mexico border, coalitions of sheriffs, agents, activists and concerned citizens have rallied to increase public awareness. According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, Mexican drug cartels maintain distribution networks in 295 U.S. cities through brutal gang activity. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has joined a chorus of policy analysts and terrorism experts by referring to Mexico’s drug war as a “criminal insurgency.” In recent visits to Mexico, both President Barack Obama and the Secretary of State have acknowledged U.S. responsibility to reduce drug demand and invest in “partnership.” As the joint response to the 2009 H1N1 flu virus by U.S. and Mexican health officials illustrated, United States and Mexico policy responses are inextricably linked. Beyond Mexico City’s federal government, which does not appear in imminent danger of collapse, the United States should be most concerned about conditions in the six northern Mexican states. Because of the current structure of the U.S. and Mexican economies, security in the Mexican states bordering the United States represents an enduring U.S. strategic interest. Averaging $320-340 billion, Mexico and China annually alternate as America’s second largest trading partner. Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was ratified in 1994, the Mexican states of Tamaulipas, Nuevo León, Coahuila, Chihuahua, Sonora, and Baja California have tripled in population. The 50 km free trade zone—extending on both sides of the border—represents the partnership that has fused the economies of both nations together. Given the degree of economic, cultural and physical connectivity, the ten states along the U.S.-Mexico frontier should be treated in many ways as a “Border Nation” when developing national security policy. The term “Border Nation” describes the region where U.S. government institutions can—and should—focus capacity building efforts, which will make a broader increase of stability more likely throughout Mexico. The Border Nation approach advocated in this monograph will produce better solutions for two reasons. First, analyzing both the U.S. southwest and northern Mexico as a separate region acknowledges the enduring economic connectivity between northern Mexico and the United States. While post-NAFTA economic growth has made the six northern states the most prosperous in Mexico, persistent violence has mortgaged these gains to drug cartels. Second, and most important, a Border Nation concept encourages U.S. officials to use an enduring geopolitical framework to develop partnerships that extend beyond diplomatic courtesies and translate into on-the-ground actions. In order to develop a practical strategic framework for partnership with Mexico in defeating the threats of the drug-fuelled criminal insurgency—which this monograph refers to as “land piracy”—the U.S. government must achieve a greater understanding of the local and regional dynamics of the six Mexican border states. Although the Merida Initiative represents a step forward in developing a viable strategic partnership, this agreement does not present operational or tactical solutions. Unless a better understanding of this area is achieved, and unless specific prescriptions are developed, the security situation throughout Mexico is unlikely to improve. This project has studied security, economic and political trends in northern Mexico and the U.S. southwest in order to develop a strategy for actions the U.S. government can take at the federal level to best support state and local security partnerships between the four U.S. and six Mexican border states to defend and deter the violence and address enduring security issues on both sides of the border. David Danelo has spent extensive time on the ground in Mexico researching conditions in the six northern Mexican states and examining methods for increasing local partnerships between U.S. and Mexican authorities. His field research frames the recommended changes in U.S. policy. No relationship in the Western Hemisphere is fraught with more geopolitical complexity than the one between Mexico and the United States. The two nations are both partners and competitors. Given the economic, social and cultural rivalries, security partnerships between the United States and Mexico have been difficult to create. Failure to build capacity and structure partnerships will enhance the strength of drug cartels and fuel instability and violence. The purpose of this project is to examine the one region—Border Nation—where an enduring security partnership is most vital to long term stability on the North American continent. Details: Philadelphia, PA: Foreign Policy Research Institute, 2011. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 12, 2012 at http://www.fpri.org/pubs/201102.danelo.geopoliticsofnorthernmexico.pdf Year: 2011 Country: International URL: http://www.fpri.org/pubs/201102.danelo.geopoliticsofnorthernmexico.pdf Shelf Number: 124096 Keywords: Border Security (U.S.) (Mexico)CartelsCriminal Justice PolicyDrug Trafficking |
Author: Nickel, Jessica Title: Children of Incarcerated Parents: An Action Plan for Federal Policymakers Summary: This action plan is designed to help federal leaders improve policies for children of incarcerated parents, but also includes recommendations of value to state and local governments that can facilitate and complement federal initiatives and result in better responses to this population” (p. ix). Sections of this publication include: introduction; children of incarcerated parents—overview and research; coordination across service systems; responses to children during a parent’s arrest; parent-child interactions within correctional systems; support for kinship caregivers of children who parents are incarcerated; foster care and permanence; child support; and state and federal benefits and income support. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2009. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 17, 2012 at http://www.reentrypolicy.org/jc_publications/federa_action_plan_/Children_Incarcerated_Parents_v8.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.reentrypolicy.org/jc_publications/federa_action_plan_/Children_Incarcerated_Parents_v8.pdf Shelf Number: 124154 Keywords: Children of Prisoners (U.S.)Criminal Justice Policy |
Author: Klofas, John M. Title: Sustainable Communities and Corrections: The Impact on Local Populations Summary: The concept of sustainable communities has provided a context for policy analysis in a wide variety of areas. It has not, however, found wide application in criminal justice. This paper will examine corrections, including imprisonment, from the perspective of community sustainability. An analysis of incarceration levels and the concentration of parolees and probationers in a northeastern city is used to examine this idea. Data reveal high concentrations of corrections populations in high crime neighborhoods. Census data also show declines in populations of young men and over all declines in parenting aged adults in the same neighborhoods. The data suggest that corrections policy and incarceration in particular has been harmful to sustainability in urban poor neighborhoods. The patterns found are inconsistent with contemporary views on desirable social structure and neighborhood efficacy. With growing interest in areas such as reentry and mass incarceration, sustainability may provide a useful context for analyses in criminal justice. Details: Rochester, NY: Center for Public Safety Initiatives, Rochester Institute of Technology, 2011. 25p. Source: Center for Public Safety Initiatives (CPSI) Working Paper #2011-01: Internet Resource: Accessed February 19, 2012 at http://www.rit.edu/cla/cpsi/WorkingPapers/2011/2011-01.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.rit.edu/cla/cpsi/WorkingPapers/2011/2011-01.pdf Shelf Number: 124201 Keywords: Community SafetyCorrectionsCriminal Justice PolicyUrban Areas |
Author: Galev, Todor Title: Crime and Punishment: Studying Justice System for Shaping Criminal Policy Summary: The current publication analyses the findings of the survey on public trust in Bulgarian police and courts, including personal assessments about the level of corruption in these institutions and the subjective perceptions of fear of crime. Two main factors are moulding the public trust: the state institutions’ effectiveness, their procedural justice and their distributive fairness towards citizens, as well as institutions’ legitimacy, the legality of their actions and the shared moral principles, which build up the obligation to respect the rules and the decisions of these institutions. The publication suggests that Bulgaria should introduce a system of indicators for assessing the public trust in the criminal justice system. These indicators would be instrumental for the more comprehensive definition of the problems, which criminal justice institutions face, and for more effective monitoring of public opinion fluctuations. Details: Sofia, Bulgaria: Center for the Study of Democracy, 2011. 91p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 28, 2012 at: http://www.csd.bg/artShow.php?id=15927 Year: 2011 Country: Bulgaria URL: http://www.csd.bg/artShow.php?id=15927 Shelf Number: 124300 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems (Bulgaria)Public Opinion |
Author: Orr, Kate Skellington Title: Summary Justice Reform: Undertakings Evaluation Summary: In December 2009, the Scottish Government commissioned an independent evaluation of reforms to undertakings, the findings of which are presented here. The research is part of a wider package of work to evaluate summary justice reform (SJR) in Scotland, and sits alongside five other evaluations of individual areas of reform, namely direct measures; criminal legal assistance and disclosure; fines enforcement; and lay justice. An evaluation of the impact of the whole package of reforms on the experiences and perceptions of victims and witnesses, and the perceptions of the general public was also commissioned. The reforms to undertakings were evaluated in tandem with a number of changes to bail which, although were part of the same Act, and occurred at roughly the same time (i.e. December 2007), were not directly part of SJR. The evaluation of the reforms to bail are the subject of a separate report with this report focusing solely on the reforms to undertakings. The main aim of the research was to evaluate how far the reforms to undertakings had met both the overarching aims and objectives of SJR, as well as a number of specific policy objectives. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Social Research, 2012. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 2, 2012 at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0038/00388998.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0038/00388998.pdf Shelf Number: 124343 Keywords: Criminal Justice AdministrationCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformsCriminal Justice Systems (Scotland) |
Author: Khan, Sadiq Title: Punishment & Reform: How Our Justice System Can Help Cut Crime Summary: ‘Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’ was more than a clever soundbite; it was a successful approach to criminal justice policy that left crime 43 per cent lower when Labour departed office than when it entered. The challenge now is to build on this legacy and further reduce crime, but within the tough spending constraints imposed by straitened times. To inform the conclusions of the Labour Party policy review, Sadiq Khan MP brings together a group of experts from across the criminal justice field to investigate reform. Their essays do not represent Labour Party policy, but are suggestions and inspiration from some of the most respected figures in the area. The authors think creatively about how to get the balance right between deterrent, punishment and rehabilitation and how to create a criminal justice system that lowers crime and protects communities whilst breaking the cycle of re-offending. One aspect that is often overlooked is the experience of the victim. Victims should be at the heart of our criminal justice system, not only because they deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, but also because their co-operation and trust is vital for it to function effectively and bring offenders to justice. But victims are often treated as mere bystanders as their cases proceed through the courts. This needs to change. In Punishment and Reform: How our justice system can help cut crime, Lord Victor Adebowale, Baroness Jean Corston, Shauneen Lambe, Paul McDowell, Kevin McGrath, Barry Mizen, Dame Helen Reeves, Professor Robert Reiner, Professor Julian V Roberts, Matthew Ryder QC, Lord Norman Warner and Phil Wheatley CB consider what changes could be made to support victims and ensure justice is served more effectively in our country. Details: London: The Fabian Society, 2011. 122p. Source: Fabian Ideas 630: Internet Resource: Accessed March 10, 2012 at http://www.fabians.org.uk/images/Punishment_and_Reform_WEB.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.fabians.org.uk/images/Punishment_and_Reform_WEB.pdf Shelf Number: 124421 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyRe-OffendingVictims of CrimeVictims Services |
Author: Stuart-Cassel, Victoria Title: Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies Summary: Bullying in schools has become widely viewed as an urgent social, health, and education concern that has moved to the forefront of public debate on school legislation and policy. Increasingly, elected officials and members of the school community have come to view bullying as an extremely serious and often neglected issue facing youths and local school systems (Swearer, Limber, & Alley, 2009). The focus on youth bullying has intensified over the past 12 years as a catalyzed reaction to school violence that is often linked explicitly or by inference to bullying. The Columbine High School shooting in 1999 was the first of many high-profile incidents of violent behavior that appeared to implicate bullying as an underlying cause (Greene & Ross, 2005). The incident ignited a wave of new legislative action within state legislatures that aimed to curtail bullying behavior on school campuses or to mitigate its effects. The trend was later fueled by a number of highly visible suicides among school-age children and adolescents that were linked to chronic bullying, attracting national attention to the issue (Marr & Field, 2001). The heightened visibility has coincided with an expansion of research knowledge identifying a range of serious and long-term consequences associated with bullying behavior, such as increased depression, substance use, aggressive impulses, and school truancy (Nansel, et al., 2001; Roland, 2002; Klomek, et al., 2007; Gastic, 2008; O’Brennan, Bradshaw, & Sawyer, 2009; Juvonen, 2009). Together these factors have placed increased pressure on governments and school systems for solutions to more effectively prevent or reduce bullying in schools. To address these issues, in August 2010, the U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services cohosted the first Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention Summit, which brought together government officials, researchers, policymakers, and education practitioners to explore potential strategies to combat bullying in schools. This summit highlighted the need for more comprehensive information about the current status of state legislation, as well as information on how existing laws and policies translate into practice within elementary and secondary school systems. To address this gap in information, the U.S. Department of Education, Program and Policy Studies Service, initiated a study designed to answer the following study questions: 1. To what extent do states’ bullying laws cover U.S. Department of Education-identified key legislative and policy components? The first study question concerns the need for an informative and clearly focused analysis of state legislation to describe the purpose and structure of laws and their definitions, key provisions, similarities, and differences. To address this question, the study includes a systematic review and coding of components in laws governing K–12 education. The review identifies the types of provisions that are addressed in legislation and measures their expansiveness. The review of legislation is based on a framework conceptualized by the U.S. Department of Education (“the Department”) that was disseminated to school districts nationally and is presented in Exhibit 1 in Chapter 1 of the report (U.S. Department of Education, 2010a). The review covers legislation enacted through April of 2011, across the 50 U.S. states. 2. To what extent do states’ model bullying policies cover U.S. Department of Education-identified key legislative and policy components? The second study question focuses on the nature and content of model policies and guidance documents that have been developed by state education agencies, or school boards associations, pursuant to legislation. These policies guide and support district efforts to develop and implement effective bullying policies. The study reviews and systematically codes model policy documents available for 41 states to determine the coverage and expansiveness of key components. 3. To what extent do school districts’ bullying policies cover U.S. Department of Education-identified school district policy subcomponents? The third study question focuses on the structure and content of bullying policies developed at the local school district level that directly shape implementation within the school environment. The study involves a systematic review and coding of components in district policies for a small sample of urban and rural school districts that was selected to incorporate the geographic and community diversity of U.S. school districts. The analysis aims to determine the types of definitions and policy components that are present in local policy documents in addition to providing a measure of their expansiveness. The analysis also examines the relationship between state legislation and local policy development (e.g., the degree to which state legislation shapes local policy). 4. How are state laws translated into practice at the school level? The final study question focuses on how bullying laws and their legislative requirements are implemented by school districts and schools. The question will be answered through a series of case studies conducted at 24 school sites across four states. The purpose of the case studies will be to highlight lessons from the field on how state legislation and model policies are shaping implementation of bullying programs and procedures, and to assess the ways that state and district policies facilitate or create challenges for effective implementation. The second study phase will be launched in the fall of 2011. Details: Washington, DC: Policy and Program Studies Service, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, U.S. Department of Education, 2011. 202p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 16, 2012 at http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/bullying/state-bullying-laws/state-bullying-laws.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/bullying/state-bullying-laws/state-bullying-laws.pdf Shelf Number: 124557 Keywords: BullyingCriminal Justice PolicyLegislationSchool Crime |
Author: Goncalves, Marilyne Pereira Title: Justice for Forests: Improving Criminal Justice Efforts to Combat Illegal Logging Summary: Every two seconds, across the world, an area of forest the size of a football field is clear-cut by illegal loggers. In some countries, up to 90 percent of all the logging taking place is illegal. Estimates suggest that this criminal activity generates approximately US$10–15 billion annually worldwide—funds that are unregulated, untaxed, and often remain in the hands of organized criminal gangs. Thus far, domestic and international efforts to curb forest crimes have focused on preventative actions, but they have had little or no significant impact. While prevention is an essential part of enforcement efforts to tackle illegal logging, it has not halted the rapid disappearance of the world’s old-growth trees. New ideas and strategies are needed to preserve what is left of forests. This paper suggests that current practice be combined with a more targeted, punitive approach, through more effective use of the criminal justice system. It argues that the criminal justice system should form an integral part of any balanced and organized strategy for fighting forest crime. This strategy should include initiatives to enhance the efficiency of criminal justice in combating illegal logging—that is, the investigation, prosecution, and conviction of cases, as well as the confiscation of the proceeds of criminal activity. These initiatives should be deployed in parallel with preventive programs, and the two approaches should complement and reinforce each other. The criminal justice system has been used in the fight against illegal logging, but only in very sporadic instances and in limited and ineffective ways. Moreover, in those few cases, it has tended to target low-level criminals whose involvement in illegal logging is due to poverty. As such, it has created no real deterrent and has encouraged skeptics to further discount the relevance of criminal justice methods. Large-scale illegal operations are carried out by sophisticated criminal networks, and law enforcement actions need to be focused on the “masterminds” behind these networks—and the highlevel corrupt officials who enable and protect them. Pursuing these important targets through the criminal justice system will require creativity and a clear focus on those criminal justice rules and procedures that prove most effective. The objective of this paper is to inform policy makers and forestry and law enforcement actors how they can use the criminal justice system in fighting illegal logging. It seeks to mobilize them to take action and address the various criminal acts involved in illegal logging operations. The paper puts forward practical suggestions that can be implemented to achieve a tangible improvement in this fight. Rather than focusing on a single element of the criminal justice system, it provides a broad overview of the topic. Future papers may provide an opportunity to flesh out further detail. Because the role of the criminal system in fighting illegal logging has thus far been minimal, there are few documented successes, and little data to explain why the criminal justice system has not been more widely used in this context. To find new ideas as to how the criminal justice system can be used against illegal loggers, this paper therefore draws on experience gained from dealing with other types of crime (money laundering, corruption, and so forth). The policy and operational recommendations made in this paper are based on legal and operational frameworks that are already in place in almost every country in the world. By making good use of these existing frameworks, we can take an important step towards ensuring the preservation and the sustainable management of the world’s forests. Policy recommendations include: Develop an integrated criminal justice strategy for illegal logging that adopts and implements clear and comprehensive policies; Improve domestic cooperation; Enlist the private sector; Engage civil society actors; and Include criminal justice as part of development assistance programs to combat illegal logging. Operational recommendations include: Work together; Attack corruption; Proactively target vulnerabilities and significant offenders; Consider all applicable offenses—not just regulatory environmental offenses; Follow the money; Employ all available criminal tools to address these complex crimes; and Improve international cooperation. Details: Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 2012. 56p. Source: World Bank Study R67: Internet Resource: Accessed March 21, 2012 at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTFINANCIALSECTOR/Resources/Illegal_Logging.pdf Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTFINANCIALSECTOR/Resources/Illegal_Logging.pdf Shelf Number: 124631 Keywords: CorruptionCriminal Justice PolicyEnvironmental CrimeIllegal LoggingOffences Against the Environment |
Author: Eisen, Lauren-Brooke Title: Reallocating Justice Resources: A Review of 2011 State Sentencing Trends Summary: they are challenged to increase public safety while coping with smaller budgets. This report distills lessons from 14 states that passed research-driven sentencing and corrections reform in 2011 and is based on interviews with stakeholders and experts, and the experience of technical assistance staff at the Vera Institute of Justice. It is intended to serve as a guide to policy makers and others interested in pursuing evidence-based justice reform in their jurisdiction. Legislatures throughout the United States enacted sentencing and corrections policy changes in 2011 that were based on data analysis of their prison populations and the growing body of research on practices that can reduce recidivism. Although this emphasis on using evidence to inform practice is not new in criminal justice, legislators are increasingly relying on this science to guide the use of taxpayer dollars more effectively to improve public safety outcomes. In highlighting important legislative changes enacted in the past year, this report documents a new approach to reform in which bipartisan, multidisciplinary policy groups are using analysis of state population and sentencing data, harnessing the political will emerging from the budget crisis, relying on decades of criminal justice research, and reaching out to key constituencies. The result is legislation that aims to make more targeted use of incarceration and to reinvest the cost savings into community programs geared toward reducing recidivism and victimization. Details: New York: Center on Sentencing and Corrections, Vera Institute of Justice, 2012. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 23, 2012 at http://www.vera.org/download?file=3489/reallocating-justice-resources.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/download?file=3489/reallocating-justice-resources.pdf Shelf Number: 124723 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyLegislationSentencing (U.S.) |
Author: Pew Center on the States Title: Public Opinion on Sentencing and Corrections Policy in America Summary: As part of the Public Safety Performance Project's work with states to improve public safety and control corrections costs, we collaborated with two of the nation's leading polling firms, The Mellman Group and Public Opinion Strategies, to explore public opinion on sentencing and corrections issues across the country. The firms conducted a national survey of 1,200 likely voters to measure underlying attitudes and support for specific policy changes. Download the summary of findings. (Adobe PDF) Key Takeaways • American voters believe too many people are in prison and the nation spends too much on imprisonment. • Voters overwhelmingly support a variety of policy changes that shift non-violent offenders from prison to more effective, less expensive alternatives. • Support for sentencing and corrections reforms (including reduced prison terms) is strong across political parties, regions, age, gender, and racial/ethnic groups. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Center on the States, 2012. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 3, 2012 at: http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewcenteronthestatesorg/Initiatives/PSPP/PEW_NationalSurveyResearchPaper_FINAL.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewcenteronthestatesorg/Initiatives/PSPP/PEW_NationalSurveyResearchPaper_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 124804 Keywords: CorrectionsCriminal Justice PolicyPublic Opinion Survey (U.S.)Sentencing |
Author: Lin, Jeffrey Title: The Scope of Correctional Control in California Summary: How many people are under correctional control in California? That is, on any given day, how many adults (18 and older) are held in adult county jails and state prisons, or supervised in the community on adult probation or parole? How many young people (ages 12-25) are held in county juvenile detention and state juvenile placement facilities, or supervised in the community on juvenile probation and parole? According to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), in 2004, California had the largest adult parolee population in the United States, the second largest probationer population after Texas (Glaze and Palla 2005), and the third largest prisoner population after the federal system and Texas (Harrison and Beck 2005a).1,2 However, California is also the most populous state in the country. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that in 2004, there were 35.8 million California residents, with 26 million Californians ages 18 or older, and 7.2 million Californians between the ages of 12 and 25 (the ages of jurisdiction for the state juvenile justice system). Given differences in state populations, a more appropriate question to ask is: How do California’s rates of correctional control compare to national averages? This research bulletin presents one-day standing counts of Californians under correctional control on December 31, 2004,3 and where possible, compares rates of control to those found in other states. The bulletin considers adult correctional control (consisting of adult prison, adult parole, jail and adult probation populations) and juvenile correctional control (consisting of state Division of Juvenile Justice institution and parole, county juvenile detention and juvenile probation populations) separately, and also notes gender, racial and ethnic differences in correctional control rates. The purpose of this bulletin is to provide a descriptive overview of the California population over which some form of control is exercised by a state or local criminal justice agency, and situate this information in a national context. It serves as an extension to data reported annually by the Bureau of Justice Statistics on the prevalence of forms of correctional control, providing additional detail for California. Policymakers will be interested in this bulletin as background in crafting criminal justice policies. It will also be useful to researchers seeking to inform their work around issues of crime, justice and punishment. Details: Irvine, CA: Center for Evidence-Based Correction, UC Irvine, 2006. 8p. Source: Bulletin Vol. 2, Issue 1: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2012 at http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/pdf/Bulletin706Da.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/pdf/Bulletin706Da.pdf Shelf Number: 125199 Keywords: Adult Corrections (California)Correctional AdministrationCriminal Justice PolicyImprisonmentJuvenile Corrections (California) |
Author: Hakim, Peter Title: Rethinking US Drug Policy Summary: Most Americans believe that their country’s forty-year “war on drugs” has failed. Yet, instead of a serious national discussion of how to reform US drug control strategies, there remains a silent tolerance of ineffective, socially harmful laws, institutions, and policies. What is most needed now is a farreaching debate on alternative approaches that could reduce the risks and damage from the trafficking and abuse of illegal drugs. That was also the conclusion of a highly-regarded report prepared by a distinguished group of Latin American presidents and other leaders. This Inter-American Dialogue report proposes six US government initiatives that would set the stage for a thorough rethinking of US drug policy. Details: Washington, DC: Inter-American Dialogue, The Beckley Foundation, 2011. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2012 at http://www.seguridadcondemocracia.org/administrador_de_carpetas/OCO-IM/pdf/Rethinking_US_Drug_Policy_feb2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.seguridadcondemocracia.org/administrador_de_carpetas/OCO-IM/pdf/Rethinking_US_Drug_Policy_feb2011.pdf Shelf Number: 125206 Keywords: Criminal Justice AdministrationCriminal Justice PolicyDrug AbuseDrug Policy (U.S.)Drug TraffickingLegislation |
Author: The Sikh Coalition Title: Bullying in New York City Schools: Educators Speak Out 2009-2010 Summary: On September 3, 2008, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Joel Klein announced Chancellor’s Regulation A-832, which established a procedure for preventing and addressing student-to-student bias-based harassment in New York City public schools. During the 2009-2010 school year, our organizations continued to monitor the implementation of Regulation A-832 as well as the Respect for All program. Rather than survey students again about the regulation’s implementation, we chose to survey teachers, who are at the frontlines of ensuring that city schools have safe, respectful climates. In all, we surveyed about 200 teachers and other school staff members from 117 schools to gather valuable anecdotal input on the DOE’s progress employing its anti-bullying measures. This report summarizes the findings from our 2009-2010 survey and provides an assessment of Chancellor’s Regulation A- 832 in its second year. We hope it will provide a road map for improving compliance with Regulation A-832 and expanding Respect for All programming, as well as encourage the DOE to quickly come into compliance with the Dignity for All Students Act, a new state law that requires schools to take affirmative measures (training, counseling, education) to prevent and respond to incidents of bullying and harassment. The results of our 2009-2010 survey of teachers and school staff about bias-based harassment reveal that, despite some progress, the New York City Department of Education (DOE) still has not dedicated adequate resources to fully employ its primary anti-bullying tool, Chancellor’s Regulation A-832. With media outlets reporting more and more horrific bias-based attacks in New York City schools and schools around the country, full implementation of the regulation is more urgent than ever. The DOE has, however, taken many important steps in the right direction. Spring 2010 brought the first ever Respect for All Week, which carried with it a promise to deliver more trainings for students on diversity issues. We applaud the DOE and City Council Speaker Quinn’s office for initiating this program, and are eager to work together in making it even more successful in the future. As our findings demonstrate, though, much more work is needed to provide all city students an educational environment free from discrimination and harassment. Details: New York: The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, 2010. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 13, 2012 at http://aaldef.org/Bullying%20Report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://aaldef.org/Bullying%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 125253 Keywords: Bullying (New York City)Criminal Justice PolicySchool CrimeSchools |
Author: Pew Center on the States Title: Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms Summary: Over the past four decades, criminal justice policy in the United States was guided largely by a central premise: the best way to protect the public was to put more people in prison. A corollary was that offenders should spend longer and longer time behind bars. The logic of the strategy seemed inescapable—more inmates serving more time surely equals less crime—and policy makers were stunningly effective at putting the approach into action. As the Pew Center on the States has documented, the state prison population spiked more than 700 percent between 1972 and 2011, and in 2008 the combined federal-statelocal inmate count reached 2.3 million, or one in 100 adults. Annual state spending on corrections now tops $51 billion and prisons account for the vast majority of the cost, even though offenders on parole and probation dramatically outnumber those behind bars. Indeed, prison expansion has delivered some public safety payoff. Serious crime has been declining for the past two decades, and imprisonment deserves some of the credit. Experts differ on precise figures, but they generally conclude that the increased use of incarceration accounted for one-quarter to one-third of the crime drop in the 1990s. Beyond the crime control benefit, most Americans support long prison terms for serious, chronic, and violent offenders as a means of exacting retribution for reprehensible behavior. But criminologists and policy makers increasingly agree that we have reached a “tipping point” with incarceration, where additional imprisonment will have little if any effect on crime. Research also has identified new offender supervision strategies and technologies that can help break the cycle of recidivism. Across the nation, these developments, combined with tight state budgets, have prompted a significant shift toward alternatives to prison for lower-level offenders. Policy makers in several states have worked across party lines to reform sentencing and release laws, including reducing prison time served by nonviolent offenders. The analysis in this study shows that longer prison terms have been a key driver of prison populations and costs, and the study highlights new opportunities for state leaders to generate greater public safety with fewer taxpayer dollars. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2012. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 26, 2012 at: http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2012/Prison_Time_Served.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2012/Prison_Time_Served.pdf Shelf Number: 125400 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ExpendituresCriminal Justice PolicyImprisonmentInmatesPrison PopulationSentencing |
Author: Bynner, John Title: The Impact of Government Policy on Social Exclusion Among Young People: A Review of the Literature for the Social Exclusion Unit in the Breaking the Cycle Series Summary: In Summer 2003, the Social Exclusion Unit commissioned a series of literature reviews examining the impact of Government policies and initiatives to tackle social exclusion policies across the lifecourse. John Bynner and Mary Londra from the Institute of Education and Gill Jones from Keele University were commissioned to undertake the literature review among young people. The aim of the review was to critically examine published evaluation evidence of the impact of government programmes since 1997 on social exclusion of young people aged in England between 13–25 years of age. Given the very extensive and wide range of policies affecting young people the research team focused on four main policy areas relating to social exclusion: education, training and employment; teenage pregnancy and parenthood; housing and homelessness; and youth offending. Many of the evaluations are of pilot projects and the findings relate more to design issues and implications for delivery, than to policy impact. The research for this review was conducted between August 2003 and February 2004, although where possible later publications have also been included in this review. Details: London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2004. 119p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 1, 2012 at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/social_exclusion_task_force/assets/publications_1997_to_2006/impact_young_people.pdf Year: 2004 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/social_exclusion_task_force/assets/publications_1997_to_2006/impact_young_people.pdf Shelf Number: 126222 Keywords: Antisocial BehaviorAt-Risk Youth (U.K.)Criminal Justice PolicyDelinquency Prevention |
Author: Subramanian, Ram Title: Realigning Justice Resources A Review of Population and Spending Shifts in Prison and Community Corrections Summary: Ongoing state budget deficits have placed the centerpiece of U.S. penal policy—incarceration—under intense scrutiny. Although crime rates have been on the decline since 1992, prison populations and spending continue to grow, spurring state policymakers to question whether resources can be better used to enhance public safety. State officials are beginning to rethink long-held tough-on-crime policies and turn their attention to decades of research showing that many offenders are dealt with more effectively in the community. To control rising costs, many states have adopted policies that aim to lower prison populations by moving people who are incarcerated to less-expensive supervision in the community, though there is recognition that for such a shift to be successful further investment in community supervision is often required. In these states, policymakers and corrections administrators hope not only to reduce correctional costs but also improve public safety outcomes. In this study, the Vera Institute of Justice, in partnership with the Pew Center on the States’ Public Safety Performance Project, set out to determine whether—in light of recent state-level policy changes and the economic recession—there have been observable shifts from prisons to community corrections between 2006 and 2010 by examining changes in 1) prison populations, 2) prison spending, 3) community corrections populations, and 4) community corrections spending. Staff from Vera’s Center on Sentencing and Corrections surveyed state corrections agencies, reviewed recent sentencing and corrections legislation, and conducted interviews with criminal justice officials knowledgeable about their states’ corrections policies and budgets. Although approaches to corrections and responses to budget shortfalls varied widely across responding states, for most states the overall trend between 2006 and 2010, in both prison and community corrections, was one of growth. However, when the findings from just the last two years of the study period are considered, a different story emerges. Between 2009 and 2010, Vera observed a stark downward shift in expenditures across many states and systems of prison and community corrections despite variations in population change—a consequence, perhaps, of shrinking state budgets and the contraction in correctional spending as a whole. Vera’s study demonstrated that there is not always a discernible relationship between population and spending shifts from one part of the system to another. Policy changes that aim to cut spending on prisons do not necessarily have the expected impact on community corrections populations or spending. Larger fiscal realities, other legislative changes, and factors outside of policymakers’ control can upset predictions of a policy’s impact. However, several states—such as, Michigan, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Wisconsin, and Virginia—have successfully implemented policies that curb both prison populations and spending. These states demonstrate that cost-savings can be realized through sentencing reform that addresses the number of people entering prison or placed on community supervision and the dedication of appropriate resources to support research-driven community supervision practices and programs. It remains to be seen, however, whether more states will achieve this type of outcome from similar policy efforts, given current fiscal pressures and external factors. Continuing efforts by states to reduce their prison populations and expenditures, strengthen their community corrections systems, and improve public safety suggest that further research may be needed. Details: New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice, 2012. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2012 at http://www.vera.org/files/Full%20Report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/files/Full%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 126405 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice Policy |
Author: Allen, Rob Title: Lost in Transition: Three Years On Summary: The purpose of this pamphlet is twofold; first to consider developments in policy and practice with young adult offenders in the three years since the publication of the Barrow Cadbury Commission’s Lost in Transition report, (Barrow Cadbury Trust 2005), and second to offer reflections on the challenges that lie in the way of better policies on young adult offenders in the future. Details: London: Barrow Cadbury Trust, 2008. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 5, 2012 at: http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/downloads/Lost_in_Transition-3_Years_On-FINAL.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/downloads/Lost_in_Transition-3_Years_On-FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 126567 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice SystemYoung Adult Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Tabachnick, Joan Title: A Reasoned Approach: Reshaping Sex Offender Policy to Prevent Child Sexual Abuse Summary: It is only in the last 30 years that society has begun to fully recognize child sexual abuse as the devastating problem that it is, to portray the trauma of sexual abuse in the media, and to seek ways to prevent and eliminate sexual violence. As communities have begun to demand a response to sexual abuse, legislators have passed an increasing number of policies directed at the people who sexually abuse. In 2007 and 2008 alone, more than 1500 sex offender-related bills were proposed in state legislatures and over 275 new laws were enacted. Nearly all of these laws and policies follow two key trends: 1) they increase the length of sex offender incarceration and 2) they monitor, track, and restrict individuals convicted of sexual offenses upon their return to communities. While the intent of these laws is to protect communities from those who abuse, to improve responses to allegations of abuse, and to prevent child sexual abuse, the broad application of these laws has unintended consequences which may make our children and communities less safe. Research from the last decade has highlighted some of the unintended negative impacts these laws may be having on our ability to prevent sexual abuse before it is perpetrated and to prevent re-offense by individuals returning to communities. When a convicted abuser returns to a community, current sex offender management policy may cause the offender to face housing, employment, and financial instability, as well as social isolation and despair — all risk factors for re-offense. The resulting instability may also reduce the ability of law enforcement and probation and parole systems to supervise the offender and ensure that s/he has access to the specialized treatment and services necessary for full accountability. In creating a legislative policy environment that may inhibit the willingness of individuals, families, and communities to face, prevent, and respond to child sexual abuse, our society does a disservice to its children. If no hopeful, rehabilitative solutions are available and made publicly known, people who witness signs of risk for victimization and/or perpetration may be less motivated to take the steps necessary to prevent child sexual abuse, intervene in situations of risk, and come forward when a child is sexually abused. Experts agree that a criminal justice response alone cannot prevent sexual abuse or keep communities safe. Yet, tougher sentencing and increased monitoring of sex offenders are fully funded in many states, while victim services and prevention programs are woefully underfunded. Furthermore, with the majority of child sexual abuse unreported (report rates are as low as 12 percent), laws and policies are unable to ensure accountability for those who abuse or to address the needs of victims. Even with these concerns there is reason for hope. Emerging research about people who sexually abuse has begun to inform new policies. Innovative state-based policies, and policies and programs within organizations and communities, are taking a comprehensive approach toward safety by focusing on the prevention of the perpetration of child sexual abuse, encouraging a range of options for holding abusers accountable, and offering incentives for abusers and families to reach out for help. And new collaborative models encourage cross-disciplinary professional partners to work together to craft new policies that prevent abuse before it is perpetrated and re-offense. Details: Beaverton, OR: Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, 2011. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 7, 2012 at http://www.atsa.com/sites/default/files/ppReasonedApproach.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.atsa.com/sites/default/files/ppReasonedApproach.pdf Shelf Number: 126572 Keywords: Child Sexual AbuseCrime PreventionCriminal Justice PolicyLegislationOffender ManagementSex Offenders |
Author: Revolving Doors Agency Title: Ending the Revolving Door: How the First Generation of Police and Crime Commissioners Can Cut Crime by Working in Partnership to Address Multiple Needs Summary: With nearly half a million crimes committed by former offenders in the year ending June 2010, repeat offending and anti-social behaviour is causing serious damage to communities, taking up valuable police resources, and placing a major burden on the public purse. A significant proportion of this crime is committed by people with multiple needs, who are falling through gaps in services and failing to get the help they need to stop offending. This briefing highlights to police and crime commissioner candidates the importance of dealing effectively with this group of ‘revolving door’ offenders in order to reduce crime and maintain an efficient police force, and offers solutions for them to consider locally. Details: London: Revolving Doors Agency, 2012. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 8, 2012 at http://www.revolving-doors.org.uk/documents/ending-the-revolving-door/ Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.revolving-doors.org.uk/documents/ending-the-revolving-door/ Shelf Number: 126640 Keywords: Anti-Social BehaviorCosts of CrimeCriminal Justice PolicyRe-OffendingRecidivism |
Author: Bechtel, Kristin Title: Dispelling the Myths: What Policy Makers Need to Know About Pretrial Research Summary: The for-profit bail bonding industry has relied upon several recent studies to make the claim that commercial surety bonds are the most effective type of pretrial release. This paper provides an overview of those studies and explains why they cannot be used for this purpose because they do not answer questions about the effectiveness of any one type of pretrial release over that of others. This paper also cautions policy makers when the for-profit bail bonding industry presents them with these studies, and concludes that researchers should engage in objective and methodologically sound research that informs cost-effective and evidence-based pretrial public policy. Details: Washington, DC: Pretrial Justice Institute, 2012. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 12, 2012 at http://www.pretrial.org/Reports/PJI%20Reports/Dispelling%20the%20Myths%20%28November%202012%29.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/Reports/PJI%20Reports/Dispelling%20the%20Myths%20%28November%202012%29.pdf Shelf Number: 126919 Keywords: BailCommercial BondsCost-Benefit AnalysisCriminal Justice PolicyPretrial Release |
Author: Feigelson, Michael Title: Stopping it Before it Starts: Strategies to Address Violence in Young Children's Lives Summary: This document advocates for systematic and reliable measures of the effect of violence on young children. It was produced by the Bernard van Leer Foundation as a contribution to the International Expert Consultation on the Prevention and Response to Violence in Early Childhood held in Lima, Peru, August 27-28 2012. It presents evidence that violence in young children's lives can be prevented through programmes such as home visitation, family strengthening, women's economic empowerment, alcohol regulation, and efforts to change social norms. It examines policy windows to achieve impact at scale on violence against children, asserting that leaders need to engage more effectively in areas of social policy such as social protection, employment, women's rights, and public security. The document suggests that more sophisticated communications strategies can drive sustained public political engagement and gain new champions for violence prevention. Details: The Hague: Bernard van Leer Foundation, 2012. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 17, 2012 at http://srsg.violenceagainstchildren.org/sites/default/files/events/Expert%20Consultation%20Lima/International%20Consultation%20VAc-%20Discussion%20Paper.pdf Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://srsg.violenceagainstchildren.org/sites/default/files/events/Expert%20Consultation%20Lima/International%20Consultation%20VAc-%20Discussion%20Paper.pdf Shelf Number: 127234 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyJuvenile VictimsViolenceViolence Prevention |
Author: Great Britain. House of Commons. Committee of Public Accounts Title: Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour Summary: Anti-social behaviour by a small proportion of individuals and families brings misery and despair to local communities. Responding to reports of anti-social behaviour in England and Wales costs government agencies around £3.4 billion a year. There are also significant indirect costs to local communities and businesses, as well as emotional costs to victims and witnesses. In 2003 the Home Office formed the Anti-Social Behaviour Unit with an annual budget of £25 million to design and implement the Government’s policy on antisocial behaviour. In September 2005 the Government announced the creation of the cross government Respect Task Force to take forward the anti-social behaviour agenda and in January 2006 the Government published the Respect Action Plan. Anti-social behaviour measures were first introduced in the mid 1990s, and since this time more powers and measures have been added to give local authorities, the police and others a toolkit of measures with which to tackle incidents of anti-social behaviour. People’s perception of the level of anti-social behaviour varies by gender, area and age, with people most likely to perceive high levels in areas of greatest social deprivation. Comparable local areas use different approaches to dealing with anti-social behaviour and there has been no comparative evaluation of the success of these approaches. Nor has there has been a comprehensive evaluation of the use and success of the different measures and powers, making it difficult for the Home Office, the Respect Task Force and those dealing with anti-social behaviour to assess what works best. On the basis of a Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Committee examined the Home Office and the Respect Task Force on evidence emerging from the sample of 893 cases of individuals receiving anti-social behaviour interventions reviewed by the National Audit Office. Of this sample, around 46% related to people aged under 18 and 54% were over 18. In the absence of central data and national evaluations, the National Audit Office had used the sample to determine the apparent impact of the intervention applied in each case, in terms of whether there was evidence of further anti-social behaviour within the period covered by the case file review, and if so, after how long and what further intervention then occurred. Some 65% of the people in the sample received only one intervention. The National Audit Office review also found, however, that a small core of people engaged repeatedly in anti-social behaviour with around 20% of their sample cases receiving over half of all interventions issued. The Committee also questioned the Home Office about its recent disclosure that a backlog of 27,500 notifications of convictions of British citizens abroad had been passed to the Association of Chief Police Officers for checking and entering on the Police National Computer in March 2006 after being allowed to build up over several years. Details: London: The Stationery Office, 2007. 53p. Source: Forty-Fourth Report of Session 2006-07: Internet Resource: Accessed December 21, 2012 at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmpubacc/246/246.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmpubacc/246/246.pdf Shelf Number: 127252 Keywords: Anti-Social Behavior (U.K.)Costs of CrimeCrime Prevention ProgramsCriminal Justice PolicyIntervention Programs |
Author: Taylor, Mac Title: California's Criminal Justice System: A Primer Summary: In January 2007, our office released the first edition of California’s Criminal Justice System: A Primer to provide the public, media, and policymakers some basic information on the state’s criminal justice system, caseloads, costs, trends, and outcomes. This publication provides more up-to-date data, generally through 2011. Updating this information for policymakers is particularly important in light of major criminal justice law changes implemented in 2011 that shifted—or “realigned”—significant responsibilities from state corrections agencies to county governments. Such data gives policymakers a picture of the state’s criminal justice system prior to the full implementation of the 2011 realignment, against which they can evaluate how the system changed following the realignment (such as in terms of crime rates, court caseloads, and correctional populations). This primer is organized into different sections that seek to answer key questions about the criminal justice system in California. Chapter 1 provides a general overview of the state’s criminal justice system, including information on the respective roles of different state and local agencies. Chapters 2 through 5 provide a series of charts and tables on each of the four major stages of the criminal justice system: (1) the commission of crimes, (2) arrest by law enforcement agencies, (3) prosecution in the trial courts, and (4) state and local corrections. Chapter 6 discusses some of the recent significant policy changes in California criminal justice, as well as some of the major criminal justice policy challenges facing policymakers in the next few years. Details: Sacramento: Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2013. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 25, 2013 at: http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2013/crim/criminal-justice-primer/criminal-justice-primer-011713.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2013/crim/criminal-justice-primer/criminal-justice-primer-011713.pdf Shelf Number: 128115 Keywords: Criminal Justice AdministrationCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice Systems (California, U.S.) |
Author: Olson, Jeremiah Carl Title: Social Construction and Political Decision Making in the American Prisons System(s) Summary: With over two million inmates, the United States’ prison population is the largest in the world. Nearly one in one hundred Americans are behind bars, either in prisons or pre-trial detention facilities. The rapid growth in incarceration is well-documented. However, social science explanations often stop at the prison gates, with little work on treatment inside prisons. This black box approach ignores important bureaucratic decisions, including the provision of rehabilitative services and the application of punishment. This dissertation offers a systematic analysis of treatment decisions inside the American prisons. I use a mixed methods approach, combining multiple quantitative datasets with environmental observation at four prisons, and original interviews of twenty-three correctional staff members. I offer the only large-n comparative analysis of American state prisons. Characteristics of the inmates as well as characteristics of staff are explored. I am able to analyze data at the state, facility and individual level. All of this is to answer a crucial and somewhat overlooked question; how do prison staff decide who should be punished and who should receive rehabilitative treatment? I find that theories of social construction offer insight into the treatment of American prison inmates. Specifically, I find that socially constructed racial categories offer explanatory value for inmate treatment. Black and Hispanic inmates are less likely to receive important rehabilitative programs, including access to mental health and medical care. Black and Hispanic inmates are also more likely to receive punishment including the use of solitary confinement in administrative segregation units. I find, consistent with theories of representative bureaucracy that staffing characteristics also impact treatment decisions, with black and Hispanic staff members expressing lower preferences for punishment and prisons with higher percentages of black staff members utilize administrative segregation less. I provide a historical overview of the changing social constructions of crime and prisons inside the United States, from colonial to present day America. I argue that the treatment of prisoners changes as our conception of crime changes. I discuss recent bipartisan attempts at prison reform and offer my own suggestions for reform of the American prison system. Details: Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, Political Science, 2013. 222p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed May 13, 2013 at: http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=polysci_etds Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=polysci_etds Shelf Number: 128713 Keywords: Correctional ProgramsCriminal Justice PolicyDecision-MakingOffender RehabilitationPrisons (U.S.) |
Author: Chiu, Tina Title: Building Cost-Benefit Analysis Capacity in Criminal Justice: Notes from a Roundtable Discussion Summary: Interest in using cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to help in criminal justice policymaking and planning has grown in recent years as state and local budgets have become increasingly strained. Most jurisdictions, however, have not been able to create a sustained capacity to produce and use CBA in decision making and budgeting. The Vera Institute of Justice organized a roundtable discussion to examine what factors might help jurisdictions build lasting capacity to use and perform CBA. (See “Roundtable Participants” on page 2 for a list of attendees and their affiliations.) The discussion highlighted the need for expertise in conducting cost-benefit studies. It also highlighted the need for trusted, credible organizations that can house this expertise. And participants talked about structures and processes that would help bring cost-benefit information to policymakers and integrate CBA as part of decision making. This document covers three areas to consider when building CBA capacity: organizations, staff, and processes. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2013. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 28, 2013 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/building-cost-benefit-analysis-capacity.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/building-cost-benefit-analysis-capacity.pdf Shelf Number: 128841 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice Policy |
Author: McPhillips, Stuart Title: "I Wanted to Make it Work" - Knowledge and Experience from Probation Practice Changes Summary: The years from 1998 to 2010 were a prolific period for policy initiatives in community corrections. From ‘what works’ initiatives to intensive supervision schemes, performance targets to ‘modernisation’, major policy initiatives sought to reshape practice. What was their real impact on practice? How did probation staff experience those changes? What contributed to success or failure? In this initial study, the team focussed on the experience of three key ‘communities of practice’– practice staff, middle and senior managers in six Probation Trusts. Their accounts, analysed using qualitative research methodology, provide fascinating insights into the real world experience of management and practice. Their learning is relevant to all involved in policy development and implementation in community corrections. Key points from the report include: 1. Successful change strategies engage and mobilise the contribution of positive staff. A devolved approach to national changes enables local leadership and high staff engagement. 2. Tensions for practitioners and managers arose from resource and cost awareness and management which were not well developed. 3. Probation staff who were directly involved with partners were positive about that experience and worked through differences - cultural, ethical or arising from different ‘ways of working’. 4. Performance targets focus attention and priority but sometimes impact negatively on practice. For only a minority of developments were the fundamentals of sound project management in place. 5. Most changes were not subject to research or evaluation, robust monitoring or capture of lessons learned – key features of evidence-informed practice. Many staff did offer positive evidence of the impact of the work and were keen to share learning and experience. Details: Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Hallam University, Hallam Centre for Community Justice, 2012. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 18, 2013 at: http://www.cjp.org.uk/publications/academic/i-wanted-to-make-it-work-knowledge-and-experience-from-probation-practice-changes/ Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cjp.org.uk/publications/academic/i-wanted-to-make-it-work-knowledge-and-experience-from-probation-practice-changes/ Shelf Number: 129027 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCriminal Justice PolicyProbation (U.K.)Probation Officers |
Author: Côté-Lussier, Carolyn Title: The Evil, Poor, Disliked and Punished: Criminal stereotypes and the effects of their cognitive, affective and behavioural outcomes on punitiveness toward crime Summary: Why does the public so staunchly support harsh criminal justice policies when the social, fiscal and political costs are so great? Individuals in countries such as Canada, the UK and USA continue to want criminal offenders to receive stiffer sentences despite growing prison populations and some indication of lower crime rates (Cullen, Fisher & Applegate, 2000; Donohue, 2007; King, 2008; Raphael, 2009; Tseloni et al., 2010; Useem et al., 2003; Walmsley, 2009). Criminological research has identified cognitive and affective pathways that predict punitiveness toward crime, such as the judged wrongfulness and harmfulness of crime, and moral outrage (Carlsmith & Darley, 2008). The overall contribution of the five papers presented in this thesis is to identify the cognitive, affective and behavioural pathways that link social perception of criminals to punitiveness toward crime. Working at the intersection of social psychology and criminology, the thesis applies theoretical frameworks such as the Stereotype Content Model (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick & Xu, 2002) and Behaviour from Intergroup Affect and Stereotypes map (Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2007) to identify the functional relation between social perception and punitiveness. Using different methodologies and at different levels of analysis, this thesis provides strong evidence that the content of criminal stereotypes is associated with specific cognitive (e.g., perceiving crime as being more serious), affective (e.g., feeling anger and a lack of compassion) and behavioural (e.g., wanting to exclude and attack) responses. In turn, criminal stereotypes and their outcomes engender punitive intuitions, decisions and attitudes. These findings reconcile extant criminological research on punitiveness with social psychological research on the function of social stereotypes. This thesis also speaks more broadly to the association between punitiveness toward crime and basic social psychological processes related to interpersonal perception and relations. In this respect, this thesis makes a significant contribution to the study of punitiveness toward crime and has important social policy implications. Details: London: The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), 2012. 312p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed July 16, 2013 at: http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/475/ Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/475/ Shelf Number: 129397 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyPunishmentPunitivenessSocial Pathology |
Author: Jarjoura, Roger Title: Review of IDOC Admission Cohort of D Felony and Select C Felony Offenders Summary: In 2011, the Indiana State Legislature's Criminal Code Evaluation Commission formed a committee, since called the Data Analysis Work Group (DAWG). One goal of this group was to examine why certain low-level and nonviolent felony offenders spend very short periods of incarceration (often less than 365 days) in IDOC. In September 2011, representatives of the Indiana University Public Policy Institute's Center for Criminal Justice Research (CCJR) met with DAWG committee members to discuss the possibility of collecting data to understand the issues that lead to short periods of incarceration in IDOC for low-level and nonviolent felony offenders. CCJR was contracted to conduct a study to better understand the processes that ultimately result in offenders sentenced to IDOC where the most serious conviction offense is a D felony or selected nonviolent C felonies. CCJR's goal for the study was to provide rich case-level data on all D felony cases and the eligible nonviolent C felonies that were admitted to the IDOC for a three-month period in 2011 to inform policy discussions surrounding efforts to change incarceration practices in the state of Indiana. This report summarizes findings of this study. Details: Indianapolis: Indiana University, Center for Criminal Justice Research, 2012. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 5, 2013 at: https://archives.iupui.edu/handle/2450/6766 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://archives.iupui.edu/handle/2450/6766 Shelf Number: 129539 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice SystemsFelony OffendersSentencing |
Author: Baker, David Title: Tough on Crime: The rhetoric and reality of property crime and feeling safe in Australia Summary: Contrary to public perception, the property crime rate in Australia actually declined between 2001 and 2010. There is a reality gap between declining crime rates and the popular rhetoric of ‘tough on crime’ media stories and political policies. Campaigning in the recent West Australian, New South Wales and Victorian state elections saw both sides of politics rely on tried and tested ‘tough on crime’ approaches to justice policies. Despite the falling rate of property crime, a ‘tough on crime’ approach to property crime continues to be promoted and pursued in some jurisdictions. An example of this is the use of mandatory sentencing for property crimes in Western Australia. As the property crime rate has fallen, there has been a corresponding increase in reported feelings of safety. There was a smaller increase in reported safety levels in Western Australia compared with the national average, which suggests that mandatory sentencing has not provided a greater sense of safety. Perceptions of social disorder had the greatest overall influence on people's reported feelings of safety, followed by reported levels of nervousness. This finding suggests the ‘tough on crime’ rhetoric still used by some politicians and sections of the media may have had a counter influence on recorded increases in feelings of safety. Whenever politicians talk about getting ‘tough on crime’, or the media selectively reports criminal justice stories, there is the potential for an increase in public nervousness and perceptions of social disorder. Such an increase is going to reduce feelings of safety among some Australians. Alternatively, balanced reporting and considered policy proposals from politicians have the potential to improve feelings of safety. Localised crime prevention programs are an opportunity to demonstrate to the community that steps are being taken to address crime. Such initiatives have the potential to change how a neighbourhood is perceived and may affect people’s tendencies to feel nervous. Although community engagement policies have the potential to increase reported feelings of safety, improvements could be made to how such programs are implemented. This paper provides evidence that will support politicians who wish to propose constructive policy responses to criminal behaviour and people’s fears of crime, rather than falling back on well-worn ‘tough on crime’ responses. Similarly, balanced reporting that includes positive stories about declining crime rates is likely to influence how people perceive disorder in their neighbourhood and the amount of time they spend feeling nervous, with the potential to positively affect how safe they feel. The facts are that property crime rates in Australia fell between 2001 and 2010 and Australians reported feeling safer. There is a good news story in this paper. Details: Canberra: Australia Institute, 2013. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: policy Brief No. 56: Accessed August 8, 2013 at: https://www.tai.org.au/index.php?q=node%2F19&pubid=1203&act=display Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: https://www.tai.org.au/index.php?q=node%2F19&pubid=1203&act=display Shelf Number: 129584 Keywords: Crime StatisticsCriminal Justice PolicyProperty Crime (Australia) |
Author: Chettiar, Inimai M. Title: Reforming Funding to Reduce Mass Incarceration Summary: The criminal justice system in the United States is vast. It touches every state and locality, creating a web of law enforcement and legal agencies. As with all complex enterprises, this system is honeycombed with incentives that steer or deter behavior, for good or ill. Changes to criminal law can only do so much in a justice system that relies heavily on the discretion of individual actors. One key factor affects individual behavior and agency policies: money. Funding structures of criminal justice agencies - direct budgets and grant awards - can create powerful incentives. This is true at all levels - federal, state, and local. Federal spending is one focal point. Washington spends billions of dollars each year to subsidize state and local criminal justice systems. Specifically, the Justice Department administers dozens of criminal justice grants. In 2012, just some of the largest programs, including the Community Oriented Policing Services and Violence Against Women Act grants, received more than $1.47 billion. The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program is the largest nationwide criminal justice grant program. Although JAG represents a small percentage of nationwide dollars spent on criminal justice, it retains an outsize influence on activities and policy. Because it funds a wide array of areas, rather than funding one kind of activity, JAG extends its reach across the entire system. Its dollars flow to local police departments, prosecutor and public defender offices, courts, and others. State and local actors rely on JAG funds year in and year out. JAG, in its original form, was created almost 30 years ago. Not surprisingly, it provides funding driven by criteria developed at a time of rising and seemingly out-of-control crime. JAG has not faced substantial overhaul since then. Today, the country faces very different criminal justice challenges. On the one hand, crime and violence have fallen sharply across the country. Fears for safety, and crises such as the crack epidemic, have receded into history. The murder rate is almost at its lowest rate in a century. At the same time, however, a far more disturbing trend has emerged: the growth of mass incarceration in the United States. With less than 5 percent of the world's population, we have almost 25 percent of its prisoners. More than 68 million Americans - a quarter of the nation's population - have criminal records. Over half the people in prison are there for drug or nonviolent crimes. One in three new prison admissions are for parole violations. The cost to taxpayers has soared: Today, the nation spends more than $80 billion annually to sustain mass incarceration. True social costs, such as the harms to families, communities, and the economy, are far higher. Fortunately, in recent years policymakers and the public have begun to advance a new approach to criminal justice, one that fights crime and violence but turns away from thoughtless criminalization and over-incarceration. A wave of innovative reforms, pioneered in cities and states, is starting to reshape criminal justice policy. These new approaches, grounded in data, seek to align public policies to target major public safety goals while reducing unintended consequences. They focus on major, violent crime without mindlessly punishing people. Significantly, these changes are uniting activists and leaders of all political ideologies. Details: New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, 2013. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 26, 2013 at: http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/REFORM_FUND_MASS_INCARC_web_0.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/REFORM_FUND_MASS_INCARC_web_0.pdf Shelf Number: 131705 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PolicyImprisonmentIncarceration (U.S.) |
Author: Lin, Jeffrey Title: Follow the Money: How California Counties Are Spending Their Public Safety Realignment Funds Summary: The California correctional system is undergoing a dramatic transformation under Assembly Bill 109 ("Realignment"), a law that shifted responsibility from the state to the counties for tens of thousands of offenders. To help manage this change, the state will distribute $4.4 billion to the counties by 2016-2017. While the legislation directs counties to use these funds for community-based programs, counties retain a substantial amount of spending discretion. Some are expanding offender treatment capacities, while others are shoring up enforcement and control apparatuses. In this report we examine counties' AB 109 spending reports and budgets to determine which counties emphasize enforcement and which emphasize treatment. We also identify counties that continue to emphasize prior orientations toward punishment and counties that have shifted their priorities in response to Realignment. We then apply quantitative and comparative methods to county budget data to identify political, economic, and criminal justice-related factors that may explain higher AB 109 spending on enforcement or higher spending on treatment, relative to other counties. In short, our analysis shows that counties that elect to allocate more AB 109 funds to enforcement and control generally appear to be responding to local criminal justice needs, including high crime rates, a shortage of law enforcement personnel, and a historic preference for using prison to punish drug offenders. Counties that favor a greater investment in offender treatment and services, meanwhile, are typified by strong electoral support for the Sheriff and relatively under-funded district attorneys and probation departments. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford law School, Criminal Justice Center, 2013. 89p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 26, 2013 at: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/443760/doc/slspublic/Money-Oct%202013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/443760/doc/slspublic/Money-Oct%202013.pdf Shelf Number: 131710 Keywords: California RealignmentCommunity-Based CorrectionsCorrectional Institutions (California)Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformPrisons |
Author: Maffei, Stefano, ed. Title: New European Crimes and Trust-Based Policy Summary: In the last decade, two large-scale research projects that focused on trust in justice were funded by the European Commission under the Seventh Framework Programme. EURO-JUSTIS, which was co-ordinated by Mike Hough and ran from 2008 to 2011, aimed to develop social indicators on trust in justice in order to enable evidence-based public assessment of criminal justice across Europe. The purpose of the FIDUCIA project, which began in 2012 and will conclude in 2015, is to shed light on a number of distinctively "new European" criminal behaviours which have emerged in the last decade as a consequence of technology developments and the increased mobility of populations across Europe, and propose new approaches to the regulation of such behaviours. For years, the question which has dominated and defined criminology is, 'Why do people break the law?' Procedural justice theory in general, and the two projects in particular, invert this question to discover reasons for compliance with the law. This focuses attention on a different set of explanations. When we ask why we ourselves observe the criminal law most of the time, we immediately look to answers that are couched in terms of normative compliance. When people ask why others break the law, explanations tend to be in terms of instrumental factors, such as insufficient deterrence or insufficient responsiveness to deterrence. The central idea behind the FIDUCIA project is that public trust in justice is important for social regulation: this is why the Consortium proposes a "trust-based" policy model in respect of emerging forms of criminality. Its aim is to determine whether new ways of regulating the sorts of crimes that are becoming more common as we move towards a more integrated Europe, with improved communication, large movements of citizens and non-citizens between member states can be discovered. What does the FIDUCIA research team mean by "trust-based policy"? This is a fundamental idea, however it requires further explanation. Most people think that police and criminal justice systems control crime through systems of deterrent threat. They suppose that people obey the law because they want to avoid the costs of conviction and punishment in the courts. This is partly true, yet it is only part of the story. Most people obey the law most of the time because they think it is the right thing to do. The police and the courts play an important role in maintaining this "normative commitment to the law", and they do it best when they command legitimate authority. People are more likely to obey the law and to cooperate with police and justice officials when they regard them as legitimate. This publication contains the findings of the FIDUCIA project's first-year of research, namely a review of: the state of knowledge on crime trends (Deliverables 1-3), the effectiveness of current criminal policies (Deliverables 4-6) and the fear of crime, trust in justice and punitive attitudes of citizens across Europe (Deliverables 7-9). Details: Athens, Greece: FIDUCIA, 2013. 230p. Source: Internet Resource: Volume #1: Accessed January 31, 2014 at: http://www.fiduciaproject.eu/media/publications/11/FiduciaVol1_Nov18.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Europe URL: http://www.fiduciaproject.eu/media/publications/11/FiduciaVol1_Nov18.pdf Shelf Number: 131820 Keywords: Crime TrendsCriminal Justice PolicyFear of CrimePolice Legitimacy |
Author: Matthies, Carl Title: Advancing the Quality of Cost-Benefit Analysis for Justice Programs Summary: The Cost-Benefit Knowledge Bank for Criminal Justice (CBKB), a project of Veras Cost-Benefit Analysis Unit, convened a working group of researchers and policymakers to help advance the use of rigorous cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in decisions about criminal justice programs and policies. Input from the working group helped shape this white paper, which describes and discusses the main methodological challenges to performing CBAs of justice investments. This technical paper is intended for anyone who conducts, plans to conduct, or wants to learn how to conduct a CBA of a justice-related policy or program. CBKB will soon publish a second white paper for a broader audience, Using Cost-Benefit Analysis for Justice Policymaking, which was also developed with guidance from the working group. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2014. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 20, 2014 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/advancing-the-quality-of-cba.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/advancing-the-quality-of-cba.pdf Shelf Number: 131977 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisCriminal Justice Policy |
Author: Center for Health and Justice at TASC Title: No Entry: A National Survey of Criminal Justice Diversion Programs and Initiatives Summary: Across the United States, criminal justice systems are managing record numbers of people with rates of substance use and mental health disorders that are exponentially higher than those of the general public. In recent years, a confluence of factors has created fertile ground for broad-based improvements to criminal justice policy and practice, including overburdened courts, crowded jails and prisons, strained government budgets, advances in the science of drug use intervention and recovery, shifting public sentiment about drug policy, awareness of the negative and residual impacts of justice involvement on families and communities, and a preponderance of research on the effectiveness and cost efficiency of alternatives to incarceration. Now more than ever, and often with strong public support, legislators, prosecutors, judges, court administrators, corrections and probation officials, and the jurisdictions they serve are responding with community-based diversion alternatives, often incorporating substance use and mental health service or program components. Policy responses such as "justice reinvestment" have offered approaches that eschew tough-on-crime policies in favor of the deliberate and data-driven application of resources to solutions that will generate the greatest return to communities and taxpayers in terms of cost savings, public safety, longterm health and personal stability for justice-involved populations, and overall community improvement. It is among these efforts and in this environment that this national survey of diversion programs has been developed. This project set out to explore the landscape of diversion from criminal justice involvement, aiming to collect and present information about programs across the country that offer diversion as an alternative to traditional justice case processing. The effort was undertaken with the knowledge that a robust assortment of alternative options exists but may be absent from or underrepresented in national conversations, and therefore not available or obvious for consideration by other jurisdictions. Details: Chicago: Center for Health and Justice at TASC, 2013. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 28, 2014 at: http://www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/sites/www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/files/publications/CHJ%20Diversion%20Report_web.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/sites/www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/files/publications/CHJ%20Diversion%20Report_web.pdf Shelf Number: 132002 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCriminal Justice PolicyDiversion |
Author: Reddy, Vikrant P. Title: Cutting Edge Corrections: Using Technology to Improve Community Supervision in Texas Summary: Over the last three decades, the United States has seen an extraordinary burst of technological innovation. Desktop computing, mobile communication, and mapping are just a few aspects of daily life that are completely different than they were only thirty years ago. For Texas legislators, these innovations have provided exciting new opportunities throughout public policy. In education policy, for example, digital learning could lead to a revolution in student outcomes. Criminal justice policy in Texas is one area that could especially benefit from innovation. In particular, technology has the potential to completely revolutionize community supervision. The fundamental needs of community supervision are technologies for monitoring offenders, for communicating with them, and for analyzing data about them. In all of these areas, technology has grown leaps and bounds. Key Points - Use risk assessments to match probationers and parolees with the most appropriate level of supervision. - Explore use of including voice recognition reporting for the lowest-risk offenders, thus reallocating supervision resources to frequent home visits as well as GPS monitoring for high-risk offenders. - Given that many of those under supervision with technical probation revocations become absconders, consider using enhanced monitoring in order to reduce technical revocations. - While continuing to use ignition interlock devices where appropriate, also consider expanding the use of other alcohol detection devices that are directed at stopping alcohol abuse, not just drunk driving. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2014. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Perspective: Accessed May 5, 2014 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2014-04-PP17-CuttingEdgeCorrections-CEJ-ReddyLevin_0.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2014-04-PP17-CuttingEdgeCorrections-CEJ-ReddyLevin_0.pdf Shelf Number: 132239 Keywords: Alcohol Interlock DevicesCommunity SupervisionCriminal Justice PolicyOffender MonitoringOffender SupervisionProbationersTechnology and Crime |
Author: Raphael, Steven Title: A New Approach to Reducing Incarceration While Maintaining Low Rates of Crime Summary: The United States incarcerates people at a higher rate than any other country in the world. Large increases in the U.S. incarceration rate over the past three decades are costly in terms of explicit expenditures, as well as in terms of the collateral social consequences for those who serve time and for the communities from which they come. Increases in incarceration rates do reduce crime. At the nation's current high incarceration rates, however, the crime-fighting effects of incarceration are much smaller than they were when the incarceration rate was much lower. Based on recent research and the experiences of several states, we believe that there is substantial room to reduce incarceration rates in the United States without adversely impacting crime rates. The policy choices that have increased the nation's incarceration rate since the early 1990s have been particularly ineffective at combating crime. We argue that states should reevaluate their policy choices and reduce the scope and severity of several of the sentencing practices that they have implemented over the past twenty-five or thirty years. We propose that states introduce a greater degree of discretion into their sentencing and parole practices through two specific reforms: (1) a reduction in the scope and severity of truth-in-sentencing laws that mandate that inmates serve minimum proportions of their sentences, and (2) a reworking and, in many instances, abandonment of mandatory minimum sentences. We also propose that states create incentives for localities to limit their use of state prison systems. Details: Washington, DC: The Hamilton Project, 2014. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Discussion Paper 2014-03: Accessed May 10, 2014 at: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/05/01%20reduce%20incarceration%20maintain%20low%20crime%20raphaels%20stollm/v5_thp_raphaelstoll%20discpaper.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/05/01%20reduce%20incarceration%20maintain%20low%20crime%20raphaels%20stollm/v5_thp_raphaelstoll%20discpaper.pdf Shelf Number: 132320 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyIncarceration RatesSentencing |
Author: Pew Charitable Trusts Title: Max Out: The Rise in Prison Inmates Released Without Supervision Summary: Despite growing evidence and a broad consensus that the period immediately following release from prison is critical for preventing recidivism, a large and increasing number of offenders are maxing out-serving their entire sentences behind bars-and returning to their communities without supervision or support. These inmates do not have any legal conditions imposed on them, are not monitored by parole or probation officers, and do not receive the assistance that can help them lead crime-free lives. An analysis of this trend by The Pew Charitable Trusts found that: - Between 1990 and 2012, the number of inmates who maxed out their sentences in prison grew 119 percent, from fewer than 50,000 to more than 100,000. - The max-out rate, the proportion of prisoners released without receiving supervision, was more than 1 in 5, or 22 percent of all releases, in 2012. - Max-out rates vary widely by state: In Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Oregon, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin, fewer than 10 percent of inmates were released without supervision in 2012. More than 40 percent of inmates maxed out their prison terms and left without supervision in Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Utah. - Nonviolent offenders are driving the increase. In a subset of states that had data available by offense type, 20 and 25 percent of drug and property offenders, respectively, were released without supervision in 2000, but those figures grew to 31 and 32 percent, or nearly 1 in 3, in 2011. The increase in max-outs is largely the outcome of state policy choices over the past three decades that resulted in offenders serving higher proportions of their sentences behind bars. Indeed, "truth-in-sentencing" laws, limits on release eligibility, and the outright elimination of parole in some states added nine months to the average prison time served by offenders released in 2009, compared with those released two decades earlier. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2014. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 16, 2014 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2014/MaxOut_Report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2014/MaxOut_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 132468 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyPrisoner ReentryRecidivism |
Author: Lofstrom, Magnus Title: Is Public Safety Realignment Reducing Recidivism in California? Summary: California has had one of the highest recidivism rates in the nation for more than a decade. This contributed to overcrowding in the state's expensive prison system and helped to motivate wide-ranging corrections reform legislation in 2011, commonly referred to as public safety realignment. Realignment essentially halted the practice of sending parole violators back to state prison and instead made counties responsible for supervising and sanctioning most released offenders. It also cut in half the maximum sentence for a supervision violation-from one year to six months. How are these changes affecting the state's recidivism rates? We find that the post-realignment period has not seen dramatic changes in arrests or convictions of released offenders. In the context of realignment's broad reforms to the corrections system, our findings suggest that offender behavior has not changed substantially. Overall arrest rates of released offenders are down slightly, with the proportion of those arrested within a year of release declining by 2 percentage points. At the same time, the proportion of those arrested multiple times has increased noticeably, by about 7 percentage points. These higher multiple arrest rates may reflect the substantial increase in the time that released offenders spend on the streets-a result of counties' limited jail capacity (Lofstrom and Raphael 2013). Convictions among released offenders have increased, but this increase does not appear to reflect changes in offender behavior so much as changes in arrest procedures and prosecutorial approaches. The likelihood that an arrest will lead to a conviction has increased by roughly 3 percentage points. Furthermore, the proportion of released offenders who are actually convicted has increased about 1.2 percentage points-a small but statistically significant rise-and nearly all of these new convictions are for felonies. Together, these findings suggest that new offenses are increasingly being processed through the courts as formal felony charges and convictions, rather than as technical violations through the Board of Parole Hearings. Finally, our analysis shows that realignment has, as intended, led to a considerable 33 percentage point drop in the proportion of released inmates who are returned to state prison. This demonstrates that realignment has made substantial progress in one of its main goals: reducing the use of prison as a sanction for parole violations and minor criminal offenses. Taken together, our findings suggest that county efforts are at least partly offsetting the effects of increased street time among released offenders. Changes in arrest and conviction rates have been modest-but these rates remain high in the post-realignment period. State and local authorities need to develop more effective, targeted policies aimed at both deterring crime and connecting released offenders to rehabilitative services. California needs such strategies to bring recidivism rates down to levels that will relieve pressure on state prison and county jails, and help the state reach the federally mandated prison population threshold. Details: Sacramento: Public Policy Institute of California, 2014. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 17, 2014 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_614MLR.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_614MLR.pdf Shelf Number: 132704 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformParole SupervisionParoleesPrison OvercrowdingPublic Safety RealignmentRecidivism |
Author: Quan, Lisa T. Title: Reallocation of Responsibility: Changes to the Correctional System in California Post-Realignment Summary: On October 1, 2011, California's long troubled correctional system began operating under a new framework created by Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109). Formally known as the 2011 Public Safety Realignment Act, AB 109 was largely a result of the state's failure to control overcrowding and its consequences for inmates in California's 33 state prisons. In 2009, a three-judge federal panel ordered the state to reduce its prison population to 137.5% of design capacity-a reduction of about 30,000 people-within two years. In mid-2011, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that order in Brown v. Plata. By signing the Realignment bill, Governor Jerry Brown put the state on the path toward compliance with the court order. More broadly, his action launched a titanic policy shift in California criminal justice, perhaps the most sweeping such change since the adoption of determinate sentencing in the 1970's. Once known as a state that relied heavily on prison to punish parole violators and other lower-level offenders, California under Realignment began shifting responsibility for most non-serious, non-violent, non-sexual (N3) felons from the state to the counties. Through the initiative's first two years, counties have received more than $2 billion to manage the new load of offenders in jails, on probation, and through evidence-based programs in the community. While several other states have also begun favoring the use of local sanctions over prison for less serious offenders, the scale of California's effort makes it an experiment of unparalleled national significance. Although it is too early to draw solid conclusions about Realignment's effects on long-term crime and recidivism, at least one outcome is clear: As the Legislature intended, AB 109 has shifted a large share of correctional control from the state to the local level. Two years after the law's implementation, the majority of California adults in the correctional system has been "realigned" and now undergoes local supervision as jail inmates and probationers. As a result, California now ranks below the national average in the proportion of adults it imprisons and places on parole. The state's probation population, meanwhile, has ballooned, with the number of probationers per 100,000 jumping 30% from 2010 to 2012. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, Stanford Criminal Justice Center, 2014. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 25, 2014 at: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/458403/doc/slspublic/CC%20Bulletin%20Jan%2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/458403/doc/slspublic/CC%20Bulletin%20Jan%2014.pdf Shelf Number: 132777 Keywords: Corrections (California)Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformPrison OvercrowdingProbationersPublic Safety Realignment Sentencing |
Author: Weisberg, Robert Title: Assessing Judicial Sentencing Preferences After Public Safety Realignment: A Survey of California Judges Summary: Public Safety Realignment ("AB 109") made drastic changes to California's criminal justice system by transferring authority for the supervision of most non-violent, nonserious, and non-sexual offenders from the state to the 58 counties. This study aims to better examine the perceived effect of AB 109 on Superior Court (trial) judges in California who sentence offenders. Through the use of a modified factorial survey, we queried judges on their sentencing choices between felony probation and new California Penal Code 1170(h) county jail sentences. We received responses from 112 judges throughout California, representing 35 counties or 96% of the state population, including the 10 most populous counties in California. The responses revealed judicial preferences that emphasize a desire to deploy sentencing to manage offenders. The preferences generally aim at a combination of a "taste of jail" and rigorous community supervision, whether that is a traditional felony probation sentence or an 1170(h) split sentence. Our study found that more than half of judges surveyed preferred to give an 1170(h) sentence over a felony probation sentence, except when the judge was aware of an offender's substance abuse problem or mental illness, or when the judge was trying to lengthen the period of incarceration or mandatory supervision. In addition, when judges chose an 1170(h) sentence, they selected a split sentence over a straight jail sentence almost half the time. However, among judges who chose split sentences, there was a tremendous variation in the chosen fraction as between jail time and supervision. Drawing from our findings, we strongly recommend that the California Legislature and/or the California judiciary clarify the relationship between traditional felony probation and an 1170(h) split sentence, and develop guidance and consensus on when and how to use split sentences. In addition, counties should enhance and increase the availability of effective community-based treatment resources, because improved treatment programs will likely increase judges' confidence in embracing these sentencing options. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, Stanford Criminal Justice Center, 2014. 142p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 25, 2014 at: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/443996/doc/slspublic/Judges%20Report%20Feb%2028%202014%20Final.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/443996/doc/slspublic/Judges%20Report%20Feb%2028%202014%20Final.pdf Shelf Number: 132779 Keywords: CorrectionsCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformJudgesPrison OvercrowdingProbationPublic Safety Realignment (California)Sentencing |
Author: Petersilia, Joan Title: Voices From the Field: How California Stakeholders View Public Safety Realignment Summary: Passage of California's Public Safety Realignment Act (AB 109) initiated the most sweeping correctional experiment in recent history. Launched on October 1, 2011, Realignment shifted responsibility for most lower-level offenders from the state to California's 58 counties. By mid-2013, more than 100,000 felons had been diverted from state prison to county jail or probation. This report summarizes the results of interviews conducted with California stakeholders responsible for implementing the law. Over the past nine months, Stanford Law School researchers conducted 125 interviews in 21 counties to produce a snapshot of how California is faring under Realignment so far. We talked with police, sheriffs, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation and parole agents, victim advocates, offenders, and social service representatives. Our goal was to determine how Realignment had influenced their agency's work and what changes they would make to the law. Our interviews revealed a justice system undergoing remarkable changes, arguably unprecedented in depth and scope. Stakeholders' opinions varied widely, and their comments reflected their role in the system more than the county they represented. Overall, probation officials were the most enthusiastic champions of Realignment, welcoming the momentum the legislation provided their rehabilitation focus. Probation departments have opened day reporting centers, expanded the use of risk assessment tools, and worked hard with community partners to establish quality evidence-based programs for offenders. Public defenders are also optimistic but expressed concerns about the longer county jail terms their clients face and the conditions under which they are served. Conversely, prosecuting attorneys generally gave Realignment negative reviews, lamenting their loss of discretion under the law. Judges expressed mixed opinions, although most were concerned about a loss of discretion and said AB 109 had greatly increased the courts' workload. Law enforcement-both front line police and sheriffs-varied more than any other group in their assessment of Realignment, with their opinions largely influenced by local jail capacity. While most police applauded the spirit of Realignment, including the expansion of local control and treatment options for offenders, all of those interviewed worried about declining public safety. Sheriffs were challenged by overloaded county jails, which in many counties have been strained by a flood of inmates and a tougher criminal population that has increased the likelihood of jail violence. Sheriffs also noted that longer jail stays were challenging their ability to provide adequate medical and mental health care, and that crowding was forcing them to release some offenders early. On the positive end of the spectrum, most stakeholders said Realignment had spawned increased collaboration at all levels of the criminal justice system and a more holistic view of offender management. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, Stanford Criminal Justice Center, 2014. 244p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: Accessed July 28, 2014 at: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/443439/doc/slspublic/Petersilia%20VOICES%20no%20es%20Final%20022814.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/443439/doc/slspublic/Petersilia%20VOICES%20no%20es%20Final%20022814.pdf Shelf Number: 132783 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformPrison OvercrowdingPublic Safety Realignment (California) |
Author: Vujic, Suncica Title: Structural Intervention Time Series Analysis of Crime Rates: The Impact of Sentence Reform in Virginia Summary: We adopt a structural time series analysis to investigate the impact of parole abolition and sentence reform in Virginia on reported crime rates. The Commonwealth of Virginia abolished parole and reformed sentencing for all felony offences committed on or after January 1, 1995. To examine the impact of Virginia's change in legislation on reported crime rates from 1995 onwards, we perform an intervention time series analysis based on structural time series models. We empirically find that the change in legislation has significantly reduced the burglary rates and to a lesser extent the murder rates in Virginia. For other violent crimes such as rape and aggravated assault the evidence of a significant reduction in crime rates is less evident or is not found. This empirical study for Virginia also provides an illustration of how an effective intervention time series analysis can be carried out in crime studies. Details: Amsterdam: Tinbergen Institute, 2012. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 28, 2014 at: http://opus.bath.ac.uk/29051/ Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://opus.bath.ac.uk/29051/ Shelf Number: 132794 Keywords: Crime RatesCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformParoleSentencing Reform (Virginia) |
Author: Males, Mike Title: California's 58 Crime Rates: Realignment and Crime in 2012 Summary: California must reduce its prison population to 137.5 percent of rated capacity (approximately 110,000 individuals), due to a court-ordered mandate. One measure to achieve an institutional population reduction was the adoption of Public Safety Realignment, under Assembly Bill (AB) 109, in October 2011, whereby counties assumed responsibility for individuals convicted of low-level, nonviolent, non-sexual offenses who might have previously been sent to state prison. Counties also are responsible for managing said individuals who are released from prison on Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS). California's crime rate increased slightly in 2012. Previous CJCJ analysis found no correlation between the crime rate increase and Realignment (CJCJ, 2013a), and the purpose of this publication is to analyze newly available data for 2012. This report further addresses recent research by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC, 2013) that concluded Realignment was associated with an increase in property offenses, particularly motor vehicle theft, but not violent offenses in the first year of the policy. The present analysis finds California's 58 counties vary dramatically in their implementation of Realignment and in their respective crime rates. There are no conclusive trends demonstrating a causal relationship between Realignment and crime, even among counties in close geographic proximity. Additionally, there may be non-Realignment factors that inform an increase in certain crimes. Given this varied implementation, some counties continue as models for innovative policies worthy of recognition and replication. Details: Sacramento: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2014. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 31, 2014 at: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/CJCJ_2014_Realignment_Report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/CJCJ_2014_Realignment_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 132851 Keywords: Crime RatesCrime StatisticsCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformPrison OvercrowdingPublic Safety Realignment (California) |
Author: European Crime Prevention Network Title: Priorities in crime prevention policies across Europe Summary: In the European Crime Prevention Monitor 2012/2 (EUCPN, 2012b), the EUCPN Secretariat collected information from the Member States on their main priorities in the crime prevention policy/strategy in their countries. Obviously, each country has its own strategy and approach regarding crime prevention. Whereas some countries pay specific attention to certain crime types in their prevention strategy, others - like e.g., the Czech Republic, Denmark and the United Kingdom - have a broad and general preventative approach at the national level, with more room to focus on local crime prevention priorities. Overall, the crime types which were considered most in the various prevention policies are: 1. Property crimes (i.e. burglaries, theft); 2. Crimes against the person (i.e. violence, domestic violence); 3. Juvenile delinquency; 4. Drug use; and 5. Violent crime. In this third Monitor, we will have a closer look at some of these crime types which are currently prioritised by the Member States and which were identified in the previous Monitor (EUCPN, 2012b). For this, we will draw upon some of the findings of the International Crime Victimization Survey of 2005 and 2010, Eurostat's Statistics in Focus 2013, the Statistical Bulletin 2013 of the European Monitoring Centre for Drug and Drug Addiction and the European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs 2011 (ESPAD). Details: Brussels: European Crime Prevention Network, 2013. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 11, 2014 at: www.eucpn.org/ Year: 2013 Country: Europe URL: www.eucpn.org/ Shelf Number: 132994 Keywords: Crime Prevention (Europe)Crime Prevention ProgramsCriminal Justice Policy |
Author: Rodriguez Ferreira, Octavio Title: Civic Engagement and the Judicial Reform: The role of civil society in reforming criminal justice in Mexico Summary: Mexico has historically featured a relatively weak civil society, due to the influence of corporatist structures controlled by the Mexican state. Yet, with regard to the criminal justice system, as other reports in this series have discussed, Mexican civil society has recently shown some encouraging signs of engagement and activism in response to significant rule of law and security concerns. Specifically, with regard to judicial reform, Mexican civic activists were very engaged in the historic 2008 constitutional and legal reforms that produced one of the most important changes in Mexico's contemporary history. This reform, which established the foundation for the country's New Criminal Justice System (Nuevo Sistema de Justicia Penal, NSJP), brought about significant changes to the Constitution on matters of criminal law, access to justice, alternative and restorative justice, the prison system, pre-trial detention, presumption of innocence, criminal investigation, due process, public security, asset seizure or forfeiture, special detention regimes, labor conditions in public security, and legislative faculties of Congress in public security and addressing organized crime. Through these amendments, Mexico joined a wave of progressive reforms that has spread throughout Latin America towards a more effective, democratic, and transparent criminal justice system. While the NSJP was reached by the agreement of political parties and hard negotiations in Congress, civil society played a significant role in the process, not only demanding a more just system, but also in pushing for the discussion, keeping the issue in the national agenda, and pursuing its final approval. This report focuses on the role played by organized civil society in the judicial reform process, highlighting the efforts of certain organizations that became particularly influential and emblematic of civic activism in the area of criminal justice reform. To analyze how organized civil society became such an important player in the game, the author first walks through the reform process itself, then analyzes the social dimension of the NSJP, and ends with a look at how the NSJP and society have influenced one another. Through a qualitative approach, the author obtained primary and secondary materials in an effort to analyze and measure the influence of civil society in the reform process. Specifically, the author gathered information on civil society organizations (CSO) that were considered to be amongst the most involved, visible and influential in the creation of the NSJP. Details: Washington, DC: Wilson Center, Mexico Institute; San Diego, CA: University of San Diego, Justice in Mexico Project; 2013. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper Series on Civic Engagement and Public Security in Mexico: Accessed August 23, 2014 at: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/rodriguez_judicial_reform.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Mexico URL: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/rodriguez_judicial_reform.pdf Shelf Number: 129895 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemJudicial Reform (Mexico) |
Author: Florida TaxWatch Title: Over-Criminalization in Florida: An Analysis of Nonviolent Third-degree Felonies Summary: Over-criminalization is the new buzzword among criminologists and legislators looking for ways to reform federal and state criminal justice systems and reduce the cost of corrections. Headline stories once monopolized by tough on crime terminology and prison building and expansion plans, now ask whether over-criminalization is making us a nation of felons. This concern led the federal government in 2013 to create a bipartisan Over-Criminalization Task Force comprised of ten congressmen from large population states like California, Texas, and New York, and southeast regional neighbors Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee. The work of this committee, which is focused on reducing the federal prison population, which has skyrocketed tenfold since 1980 (now 219,000 inmates at $7 billion annually), was renewed last month to review the 4,500 statutory federal crimes in the U.S. Code. Federal and state research regarding prison populations support the need for critical analysis. America leads the world in incarceration, with 760 prisoners per 100,000 compared to Britain with 153, Germany with 90 and Japan with 63.4 America incarcerates more than Cuba, China, Venezuela and Russia. America makes up 5% of the world's population, but has 25% of the world's prison Florida statistics reveal an even more acute situation than the national picture. The state prison population (102,225 as of January 2014) is projected to increase to 106,793 by 2017. To add context, in the last 35 years the state population increased 102.8%, but the prison population jumped 402.5%, resulting in state spending on corrections during this same period increasing by 1200%, to $2.4B. This despite the fact that crime statistics have steadily declined during this period, and have reached 30 year lows. Florida has 1.5 million felons living within the state, or one in ten adults. Prison populations are not the only numbers growing dramatically, so are the number of actions criminalized by Florida laws. Thousands of different offenses are now scattered throughout Florida statutes. Some drug and environmental laws do not even require criminal intent. Removing the element of intent means anyone found with illegal substances, or disposing of hazardous waste improperly, commits a felony whether the offense was committed inadvertently or not. Details: Tallahassee: TaxWatch, 2014. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 20, 2014 at: http://floridataxwatch.org/resources/pdf/ThirdDegreeFINAL.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://floridataxwatch.org/resources/pdf/ThirdDegreeFINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 133745 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisCosts of CorrectionsCriminal Justice PolicyImprisonment, Economic Impacts ofPrisoners (Florida)Punishment |
Author: Opportunity Agenda Title: An Overview of Public Opinion and Discourse on Criminal Justice Issues Summary: Our report, "An Overview of Public Opinion and Discourse on Criminal Justice Issues," examines the American public discourse on crime, the criminal justice system, and criminal justice reform. The report is divided into four sections. - Public Opinion Research: This section seeks to understand the extent and the direction of America's changing attitudes toward the criminal justice system. - Media Coverage of Criminal Justice Reform: This part analyzes how mainstream media covers criminal justice reform issues. - Media Coverage of Racial Justice Issues: This analysis looks at the coverage of racial profiling in major U.S. newspapers, broadcast news shows, and popular news blogs. - Criminal Justice and Social Media: This section analyzes and explains social media content, engagement, and trends on discourse around criminal justice. The report seeks to help reform leaders, organizations, and allies to build public support for effective solutions to criminal justice issues. It also provides useful insights for journalists, news outlets, and commentators who cover-or could cover-criminal justice. America's Views on Criminal Justice Despite America's decreasing crime rates, the country's criminal justice system is larger than ever. The economic and social impact of incarcerating 2.3 million Americans affects many communities, homes, and families alike. Nevertheless, Americans' views on the criminal justice system have changed, creating the environment for key stakeholders in government agencies, the president, and the legislative branch to hear advocates for criminal justice reform and enact positive changes to the system. Moving Forward The nation's experiment with mass incarceration is being scrutinized and critiqued as never before, which brings criminal justice reform to the public policy agenda. Understanding today's public discourse-how Americans think, feel, and communicate about crime-must be the foundation for bringing about this paradigm shift going forward. Details: New York: Opportunity Agenda, 2014. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 10, 2014 at: http://opportunityagenda.org/files/field_file/2014.08.23-CriminalJusticeReport-FINAL_0.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://opportunityagenda.org/files/field_file/2014.08.23-CriminalJusticeReport-FINAL_0.pdf Shelf Number: 134011 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice Reform (U.S.)Mass CommunicationsPublic OpinionRacial JusticeRacial ProfilingSocial Media |
Author: Felbab-Brown, Vanda Title: Changing the Game or Dropping the Ball? Mexico's Security and Anti-Crime Strategy under President Enrique Pena Nieto Summary: ANALYSIS - Even as the administration of Mexico's President Enrique Pena Nieto has scored important reform successes in the economic sphere, its security and law enforcement policy toward organized crime remains incomplete and ill-defined. Preoccupied with the fighting among vicious drug trafficking groups and the rise of anti-crime vigilante militias in the center of Mexico, the administration has for the most part averted its eyes from the previously highly-violent criminal hotspots in the north where major law enforcement challenges remain. - The Pena Nieto administration thus mostly continues to put out immediate security fires - such as in Michoacan and Tamaulipas - but the overall deterrence capacity of Mexico's military and law enforcement forces and justice sector continue to be very limited and largely unable to deter violence escalation and reescalation. - Identifying the need to reduce violence in Mexico as the most important priority for its security policy was the right decision of the Pena Nieto administration. But despite the capture of Mexico's most notorious drug trafficker, Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, much of the security policy reform momentum that surrounded the Pena Nieto administration at the outset of its six-year term has prematurely dissipated. Key pillars of the policy are plodding along meekly, including the national gendarmerie, the new intelligence supercenter, and the mando unico. The October 2013 deadline to vet all police units for corruption and links to organized crime was missed once again and extended until October 2014. As with many institutional reforms in Mexico, there is large regional variation in the quality and even design of the reforms being implemented. At least, however, the Mexican Congress, overall a weak player in setting and overseeing anti-crime policy in Mexico, approved a new criminal code in the spring of 2014. The so-called National Code of Penal Procedure (Codigo Nacional de Procedimientos Penales) will be critical in establishing uniform application of criminal law across Mexico's thirty-one states and the Federal District, and standardizing procedures regarding investigations, trials, and punishment. - Instead of pushing ahead with institutional reforms, the Pena Nieto administration has highlighted poor coordination among national security agencies and local and national government units as a crucial cause of the rise of violent crime in Mexico. It has thus defined improving coordination as a key aspect of its anti-crime approach. - Despite its rhetoric and early ambitions, the Pena Nieto administration fell straight back not only into relying on the Mexican military in combination with the Federal Police to cope with criminal violence, but also doing so belatedly and with an essentially analogous lack of planning and prepositioning, and with essentially the same operational design as the previous Felipe Calderon administration. - Although homicides, including those perpetrated by drug trafficking organizations (DTOs), have decreased in Mexico, the drop did not reach the 50% reduction in the first six months in office that the Pena Nieto administration had promised. Moreover, in various parts of Mexico, the violence reduction cannot be necessarily attributed to government policies, but rather is the outcome of new balances of power being established among criminal groups in previously highly contested hotspots. Many of these balances of power among the DTOs had emerged already in the last years of the Felipe Calderon administration. In these areas of newly established criminal control and deterrence, even kidnapping and extortion might be leveling off and becoming more predictable, even as they are overall on the rise in Mexico. - In its security and law enforcement efforts, the Pena Nieto administration has largely slipped into many of the same policies of President Felipe Calderon. In particular, the current administration has adopted the same non-strategic high-value targeting that defined the previous administration. Perhaps with the exception of targeting the Zetas and Los Caballeros Templarios, this interdiction posture mostly continues to be undertaken on a non-strategic basis as opportunistic intelligence becomes available and without forethought, planning, and prepositioning to avoid new dangerous cycles of violence and renewed contestation among local drug trafficking groups. This development is partially the outcome of institutional inertia in the absence of an alternative strategy, and of operational simplicity, compared to, for example, a more effective but also more demanding policy of middle-level targeting. - Importantly, the Pena Nieto administration has sought to pay greater attention to and respect for human rights issues, such as by allowing civilian claims of human rights violations by Mexico's military forces to be tried in civilian courts and establishing a victims' compensation fund. But the efforts to increase rule of law, justice, and the protection of human rights and to reduce impunity and corruption remain very much a work in progress, with the government's resolve, policies, and outcomes varying widely among Mexico's states. - The Pena Nieto administration's focus on socio-economic anti-crime policies and other crime prevention measures is highly laudable. But its signature anti-crime socio-economic approach - the so-called poligonos program - has not been well-operationalized and is not integrated with law enforcement efforts. The discreet efforts remain scattered. The theory, implementation, and monitoring parameters of the national crime prevention strategy are not yet adequately worked out. These deficiencies undermine the program's effectiveness and risk dissipating the dedicated yet relatively small resources allocated to the effort as well as the effort's energy. Monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of socio-economic anti-crime efforts, including the poligonos approach, is particularly weak and nebulous. Details: Washington, DC: Latin American Initiative, Foreign Policy at Brookings, 2014. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 13, 2014 at: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/11/mexico%20security%20anti%20crime%20nieto%20felbabbrown/mexico%20security%20anti%20crime%20nieto%20v1%20felbabbrown.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Mexico URL: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/11/mexico%20security%20anti%20crime%20nieto%20felbabbrown/mexico%20security%20anti%20crime%20nieto%20v1%20felbabbrown.pdf Shelf Number: 134070 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal NetworksDrug TraffickingDrug-Related ViolenceGangsHomicidesKidnappingOrganized CrimeViolence (Mexico)Violent Crime |
Author: Mitchell, Michael Title: Changing Priorities: State Criminal Justice Reforms and Investments in Education Summary: Most states' prison populations are at historic highs after decades of extraordinary growth; in 36 states, the prison population has more than tripled as a share of the state population since 1978. This rapid growth, which continued even after crime rates fell substantially in the 1990s, has been costly. Corrections spending is now the third-largest category of spending in most states, behind education and health care. If states were still spending on corrections what they spent in the mid-1980s, adjusted for inflation, they would have about $28 billion more each year that they could choose to spend on more productive investments or a mix of investments and tax reductions. Even as states spend more on corrections, they are underinvesting in educating children and young adults, especially those in high-poverty neighborhoods. At least 30 states are providing less general funding per student this year for K-12 schools than before the recession, after adjusting for inflation; in 14 states the reduction exceeds 10 percent. Higher education cuts have been even deeper: the average state has cut higher education funding per student by 23 percent since the recession hit, after adjusting for inflation. Eleven states spent more of their general funds on corrections than on higher education in 2013. And some of the states with the biggest education cuts in recent years also have among the nation's highest incarceration rates. This is not sound policy. State economies would be much stronger over time if states invested more in education and other areas that can boost long-term economic growth and less in maintaining extremely high prison populations. The economic health of many low-income neighborhoods, which face disproportionately high incarceration rates, could particularly improve if states reordered their spending in such a way. States could use the freed-up funds in a number of ways, such as expanding access to high-quality preschool, reducing class sizes in high-poverty schools, and revising state funding formulas to invest more in high-poverty neighborhoods. Details: Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2014. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 13, 2014 at: http://www.cbpp.org/files/10-28-14sfp.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.cbpp.org/files/10-28-14sfp.pdf Shelf Number: 134083 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice Reform (U.S.)Delinquency PreventionEducationPoverty |
Author: Austin, James Title: Contra Costa County: A Model for Managing Local Corrections Summary: Before and since Public Safety Realignment, an increasing number of California counties have faced litigation regarding overcrowding, including court-ordered population caps. In light of these pressures, it is important to note successful models for reducing jail populations, costs and recidivism rates. Contra Costa, California's ninth most populous county, offers such a model, especially since the County has crime and arrest rates similar to the rest of the state. Specifically: 1. In Contra Costa County, individuals are incarcerated and placed on probation and parole at a rate that is one-half the rest of the state of California. 2. Before Public Safety Realignment, the County sent only 13% of people convicted of a felony to prison, versus the statewide average of 20%. 3. Over a three-year period, people on felony probation in the County had a recidivism rate of 20% - far lower than the 60% or higher rates statewide found in other studies. 4. Contra Costa County has the state's highest rate of split sentences (when a judge divides a sentence between a jail term and supervised probation). The County splits nine out of 10 sentences (far higher than the 28% state average), which has effectively neutralized the impact of AB 109 on its jail population. 5. Unlike other jurisdictions, Contra Costa County issues shorter probation terms. For example, neighboring Alameda County typically gives a five-year probation term for individuals convicted of a felony crime. In Contra Costa, most probation terms are within the 24-36 month range, matching a growing body of evidence that longer terms can not only be unnecessary (for public safety gains) but actually can have negative effects. Details: Denver, CO: JFA Institute, 2014. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 14, 2014 at: http://www.jfa-associates.com/new%20from/JFA%20doc06.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.jfa-associates.com/new%20from/JFA%20doc06.pdf Shelf Number: 134089 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsCriminal Justice PolicyJailsPrisons (California)Public Safety Realignment |
Author: Jannetta, Jesse Title: Examining Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Probation Revocation: Summary Findings and Implications from a Multisite Study Summary: This brief presents summary findings from an Urban Institute study examining the degree of racial and ethnic disparity in probation revocation outcomes and the drivers of that disparity in four diverse probation jurisdictions. Black probationers were revoked at higher rates than white and Hispanic probationers in all study sites. Differences in risk assessment scores and criminal history were major contributors to the black-white disparity. Results for disparity to the disadvantage of Hispanic probationers were mixed. The brief concludes with a discussion of policy implications for probation and the criminal justice system as a whole. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2014. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 25, 2014 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/413174-Examining-Racial-and-Ethnic-Disparities-in-Probation-Revocations-Summary-Findings.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/413174-Examining-Racial-and-Ethnic-Disparities-in-Probation-Revocations-Summary-Findings.pdf Shelf Number: 134238 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyProbation RevocationProbationers (U.S.)Racial Disparities |
Author: Downey, P. Mitchell Title: Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Guide for Drug Courts and other Criminal Justice Programs Summary: Policymakers and practitioners face difficult decisions when they allocate resources. As resource constraints have tightened, the role of researchers in informing evidence-based and cost-effective decisions about the use of funds, labor, materials and equipment - and even the skills of workers - has increased. We believe research that can inform decisions about resource allocation will be a central focus of criminal justice research in the years to come, with cost-benefit analysis (CBA) among the key tools. This report about the use of CBA is aimed at not only researchers but also practitioners and policymakers who use research to make choices about how to use limited resources. Although we include NIJ's Multi-site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) as an example of CBA in practice, this report is not just about using CBA in drug courts. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, 2014. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: National Institute of Justice Research in Brief: Accessed November 25, 2014 at: https://ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/246769.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/246769.pdf Shelf Number: 134243 Keywords: Cost-Benefit Analysis (U.S.)Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PolicyDrug CourtsEvidence-Based PracticesProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Henrichson, Christian Title: Cost-Benefit Analysis and Justice Policy Toolkit Summary: Throughout the justice field, demand is growing for cost-benefit analysis (CBA), an economic tool that compares the costs of programs or policies with the benefits they produce. Although there is no one-size-fits-all template for conducting a CBA, analysts and researchers must follow a common methodology, or series of steps. This toolkit guides users through these steps and provides examples of Vera's recent work advising six justice agencies that were either starting or enhancing their CBA efforts. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2014. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 21, 2015 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/cba-justice-policy-toolkit.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/cba-justice-policy-toolkit.pdf Shelf Number: 134429 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice Policy |
Author: Farrall, Stephen Title: Using Ideas Derived from Historical Institutionalism to Illuminate the Long-term Impacts on Crime of 'Thatcherite' Social and Economic Policies Summary: In this working paper, we outline our thinking on a very large and complex undertaking; namely the assessment of the ways in which the Thatcher governments of the 1980s may have had quite unintended consequences on crime via some of the policies which they set about pursuing for quite separate reasons, but which, nevertheless contributed to amongst other things, the upswing in crime in the 1980s. Our thinking is not heavily informed by theories commonly examined by criminologists; instead our thinking about both the causal antecedents of these governments and their approach to re-engineering society, and the causal antecedents of crime are informed by thinking inspired by historical institutionalist scholars writing within political science, and sociological and economic theories of crime causation. We outline historical institutionalism and identify the ways in which it may be of use to ourselves. Details: Sheffield, UK: University of Sheffield, 2014. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper. ESRC Long-term Crime Trends, 1 (1): Accessed February 12, 2015 at: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/77483/1/Working%20Paper%201%20%28Historical%20Institutionalism%29.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/77483/1/Working%20Paper%201%20%28Historical%20Institutionalism%29.pdf Shelf Number: 134602 Keywords: Crime PoliciesCrime Trends (U.K.)Criminal Justice Policy |
Author: Maryland. Commission to Reform Maryland's Pretrial System Title: Commission to Reform Maryland's Pretrial System: Final Report Summary: The Governor's Commission to Reform Maryland's Pretrial System ("the Commission") was established by Executive Order on May 27, 2014 to gather experts and interested parties, with the goal of developing recommendations to ensure that Maryland operates the best possible statewide pretrial system. The Commission was preceded by the Task Force to Study the Laws and Policies Relating to Representation of Indigent Criminal Defendants by the Public Defender. The work of the Commission was also informed by legislative deliberations during the 2014 Session of the Maryland General Assembly. On July 1, 2014, the State of Maryland began to implement a Court of Appeals decision that requires state-furnished counsel for indigent defendants at initial appearances before a District Court Commissioner. The Commission studied characteristics of the current pretrial system, including outcomes associated with the provision of counsel at the initial appearance phase. The Commission met five times and also formed three subcommittees related to Managing Public Safety through Risk-Based Decision Making, Pretrial System Improvement, and Individual Rights and Collateral Consequences. These three subcommittees held five additional meetings. The Commission ultimately voted to approve the following 14 recommendations: - Recommendation One: Create a uniform pretrial services agency which mandates a process that will ensure continuity and consistency across all 24 jurisdictions. Pretrial services will be responsible for gathering criminal records, administering a statewide risk assessment tool and other relevant information that will be beneficial in determining the initial appearance and to avoid the redundancy of various agencies pulling the same information. Pretrial services will also be responsible for supervision of those released under pretrial supervision and provide referrals for treatment, counseling and other services, particularly for those individuals with limited means, to address the underlying needs that may have caused the criminal behavior. - Recommendation Two: Provide adequate funding and/or personnel to implement a validated risk assessment tool modeled after best practices to pilot in jurisdictions to be utilized by the Court Commissioners after the data has been analyzed. - Recommendation Three: The Judiciary should evaluate the current pretrial system to determine whether it has the capacity to implement best practices in pretrial justice. This evaluation should consider the re-purposing of District Court Commissioners from their current duties to conducting risk assessments on defendants and supervising defendants pretrial. - Recommendation Four: The use of secured, financial conditions of pretrial release (cash, property, or surety bond) that require a low-risk defendant to pay some amount of money in order to obtain release, while permitting high-risk defendants with the resources to pay their bonds to leave jail unsupervised, be completely eliminated. - Recommendation Five: Cash bail, and its associated impact, should be monitored by the Maryland Insurance Administration to determine if changes need to be developed and implemented including a comparison between secured and unsecured bond. - Recommendation Six: The Commission recommends that under no circumstances should we institutionalize the Judicial Branch of Government as the line manager of what amounts to the Lawyer-Referral Service Program for Attorneys to represent indigent criminally accused in their First Appearance before a Commissioner. The Office of the Public Defender was created by statute to represent indigent criminally accused. It is an Executive Branch Agency of State Government and should have that responsibility from the initial appearance through appeals. - Recommendation Seven: The Commission recommends earlier and enhanced prosecutorial screening, particularly of citizens' complaints, by way of Maryland rule, prior to the issuance of a summons or warrant, except for domestically related crimes. - Recommendation Eight: Maximize and expand the use of the criminal citation process by law enforcement. - Recommendation Nine: Create a system so that only one entity in the pretrial process has to pull and summarize the arrestee's record, consistent with and in accordance with state and federal law and the independent needs of the system in order to operate efficiently. - Recommendation Ten: Provide state funding to create a shared jail management system, possibly through the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services' Offender Case Management System (OCMS), to allow for data collection on the pretrial population statewide. - Recommendation Eleven: It is recommended that funding be provided for court and public safety-designated facilities to be outfitted with audio/visual equipment to optimize court hearing efficiencies. - Recommendation Twelve: That whatever pretrial system is contemplated, the critical principle of prompt presentment no later than 24 hours of arrest remain. - Recommendation Thirteen: Data are needed in order to effectively determine impact of process and procedures on various demographics (race, gender, non-English speaking, and indigence defined as eligibility for representation by the Office of the Public Defender or appointed attorney). Additionally, timeliness factors such as rates of waiver to arrests and time between arrest and presentment, by jurisdiction, should be compared and measured. - Recommendation Fourteen: A Commission to Study the Maryland Criminal Justice System shall be created. The purpose of the Commission shall be to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of state and local criminal justice systems by providing a centralized and impartial forum for statewide policy development and planning with a focus on evidence-based decision making. The primary duty of the Commission shall be to develop and maintain a state criminal justice policy and comprehensive, long-range plan for a coordinated and cost-effective state criminal justice system that encompasses public safety, defendant and offender accountability, crime reduction and prevention, and defendant and offender treatment and rehabilitation. Details: Baltimore: The Commission, 2014. 77p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 16, 2015 at: http://www.goccp.maryland.gov/pretrial/documents/2014-pretrial-commission-final-report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.goccp.maryland.gov/pretrial/documents/2014-pretrial-commission-final-report.pdf Shelf Number: 134944 Keywords: BailCriminal Justice PolicyPretrial Detention (Maryland)Pretrial ReleasePretrial ServicesRisk Assessment |
Author: Lofstrom, Magnus Title: Realignment, Incarceration, and Crime Trends in California Summary: When California's historic public safety realignment was implemented in October 2011, many were concerned about the impact it would have on crime rates. In a 2013 report, we found that realignment did not increase violent crime in its first year, but that it did lead to an increase in auto thefts. In this report, we assess whether these trends continued beyond realignment's first year. We find that both the prison and jail populations increased slightly since 2012, which means that the number of offenders on the street did not rise from the 18,000 during realignment's first year. This is likely to change with the implementation of Proposition 47, which further reduces California's reliance on incarceration. Our analysis of updated state-level crime data from the FBI confirms our previous findings. Violent crime rates remain unaffected by realignment, and although California's property crime rate decreased in 2013, it did not drop more than in comparable states-so the auto theft gap that opened up in 2012 has not closed. Research indicates that further reductions in incarceration may have a greater effect on crime trends; the state needs to implement effective crime prevention strategies-and it can learn about alternatives to incarceration successfully implemented by the counties as well as other states. Details: Sacramento: Public Policy Institute of California, 2015. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 27, 2015 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_515MLR.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_515MLR.pdf Shelf Number: 135791 Keywords: Crime RatesCriminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice Reform Parole SupervisionParolees Prison Overcrowding Public Safety Realignment Recidivism |
Author: Wilks, Jason Title: A Dynamic Analysis of Organized Crime in Jamaica Summary: The impact of the reform efforts of the 1990s, as well as the rapid process of globalization, all resulted in far reaching changes in the structure of the Jamaican economy. With these changes, the existing planning and economic models became increasingly limited in scope as they could not adequately reflect the new structural reality. In March 2006, the Government of Jamaica engaged the Millennium Institute to assist it in development of a modern planning tool with the capability to integrate the economic, environmental and social elements. An important component of the model is the sector for organized crime behaviour in Jamaica. The purpose of this paper is to explain the development of the organized crime sector within the T-21 Jamaica model and demonstrate the possible utility of system dynamics in facilitating discussions on public policy. Details: PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE- SYSTEM DYNAMICS SOCIETY; 8; 5105-5129 Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 4, 2015 at: http://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/2007/proceed/papers/WILKS382.pdf Year: 2007 Country: Jamaica URL: http://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/2007/proceed/papers/WILKS382.pdf Shelf Number: 135897 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyOrganized Crime |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Federal Prison System: Justice Could Better Measure Progress Addressing Incarceration Challenges Summary: The federal inmate population has increased more than eight-fold since 1980, and DOJ has identified prison crowding as a critical issue since 2006. BOP's rising costs and offender recidivism present incarceration challenges to both DOJ and the nation. For example, BOP's operating costs (obligations) have increased over time, and in fiscal year 2014 amounted to more than $7 billion, or 19 percent of DOJ's total obligations. In recent years, DOJ has implemented targeted initiatives in response, and Senate Report 113-78 included a provision for GAO to review these efforts. This report discusses (1) DOJ's initiatives to address federal incarceration challenges, (2) the extent to which DOJ is measuring its efforts, and (3) the extent to which DOJ is coordinating across its components to implement the Smart on Crime Initiative. GAO reviewed DOJ documentation, interviewed DOJ officials, and compared DOJ efforts with performance measurement and coordination best practices GAO has previously identified. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2015. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-15-454: Accessed July 9, 2015 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/670896.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/670896.pdf Shelf Number: 135974 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCosts of IncarcerationCriminal Justice PolicyFederal PrisonsImprisonment, Economic Aspects ofPrisonsSmart on Crime |
Author: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority Title: Public Safety, Crime and Justice Report Summary: Every day, thousands of dedicated men and women in blue risk their lives to keep the residents of the sprawling Chicago metropolitan region safe. Their service and sacrifice are deeply appreciated. Unfortunately, the criminal justice system in the Chicago metropolitan region and across the United States has been heavily criticized for not always meeting the "Big Three Es" Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Equity. The system is slow in administering justice and expensive to maintain. Too often the system that is supposed to rehabilitate offenders is unable to prevent them from returning to crime. And too often the system that is supposed to dispense justice is accused of enforcing laws in a manner that discriminates against persons of color and the poor. Indeed, research has documented racial bias in decisions regarding arrests, searches, prosecutions, and sentencing, thus yielding today's problem of disproportionate minority contact. Furthermore, research has documented some abusive encounters between the police and the public. This has resulted in reduced public confidence in the legitimacy of the criminal justice system. In an attempt to enhance safety in our communities, American society has become heavily reliant on punitive, zero tolerance strategies. This has resulted in the rapid growth of prison populations over the past two decades, mostly affecting persons of color with limited means, and often involving non-violent offenders. The result is that United States now has the highest rate of imprisonment per capita in the world. In addition to enhancing the existing system, this report suggests a need to seriously consider alternative models of justice, such as the Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) approach - which gives balanced attention to public safety, individual accountability to victims and the community, and development of skills to help offenders live law abiding and productive lives. The report also suggests the need to create an independent system of measurement to monitor the fairness of the criminal justice system and measure public safety outcomes that are important to the community, but are not captured in current indicators. Besides crime rates, the public cares about the quality of life in their neighborhoods as measured by levels of physical and social disorder, fear of crime, and their freedom to use the local environment without concern for safety. The community also cares deeply about equity and fairness during encounters with the police and other agents of the criminal justice system. Details: Chicago: Chicago Community Trust; Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority; University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) Center for Research in Law and Justice, 2009. 127p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 15, 2015 at: http://www.issuelab.org/resource/public_safety_crime_and_justice_report Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.issuelab.org/resource/public_safety_crime_and_justice_report Shelf Number: 136057 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsPublic SafetyRacial BiasRacial Discrimination |
Author: Turner, Susan Title: Public Safety Realignment in Twelve California Counties Summary: Following long bouts of litigation among inmates, prison guards, and state officials, in May 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of a three-judge panel that imposed a cap on California's prison population and ordered the state to reduce its prison population to 137.5 percent of "design capacity" within two years. The primary basis for the court ruling was that the overcrowded prison system violated inmates' constitutional right to adequate health care. In response to the 2011 Supreme Court decision, California adopted two measures, Assembly Bill (AB) 109 and AB 117, collectively known as realignment. These measures shift responsibility for certain low-level offenders, parole violators, and parolees, previously the state's responsibility, to California counties. Realignment gives counties a great deal of flexibility in how they treat these offenders and allows them to choose alternatives to custody for realignment offenders. As time has passed since realignment began in October 2011, several studies have evaluated various aspects of the planning and implementation of realignment. The study reported here focused on the flexibility that the state granted counties in implementing realignment. In particular, the authors wanted to determine whether counties essentially continued and expanded what they were already doing in county corrections or whether they used realignment as an opportunity to change from "business as usual." Key Findings Counties Encounter Unanticipated Challenges and Find That There Are Many Unknowns About Strategies' Effects - Realignment appears to have shifted the responsibility for, but not the total numbers of, offenders in the system (at least those under the primary forms of supervision and incarceration). Many Things That Are Being Implemented Are Enhancements of Existing Programs or Policies - Both probation and sheriff's department representatives mentioned a focus on providing services and expanding evidence-based practices, although clearly sheriff's departments often focused on adding jail capacity. Every county voiced concern about realigned offenders' increased risk levels and need profiles: They required more mental and other health services, and high proportions were rated as high risk on assessment instruments. There Is Evidence of Movement Toward Co-locating Service Provision - A movement toward the delivery of services in a one-stop location was evident in both probation and sheriff's departments. Reentry units - specialized areas in the jails - are gaining momentum for inmates near the ends of their sentences in an effort to provide them with the skills, services, and connections to outside agencies. Recommendations - Longer-term follow-up will be able to provide a more comprehensive analysis of system changes. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2015. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 21, 2015 at: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR800/RR872/RAND_RR872.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR800/RR872/RAND_RR872.pdf Shelf Number: 136837 Keywords: Criminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice ReformOffender SupervisionParole Supervision Parolees Prison Overcrowding Public Safety Realignment |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in Kansas: Strengthening Probation Supervision and Promoting Successful Reentry Summary: Facing a projected 23-percent growth in the state prison population by FY2021, policymakers from across the political spectrum in Kansas enacted House Bill (HB) 2170 in April 2013. The law implements policy recommendations developed through "justice reinvestment," a data-driven approach designed to reduce corrections spending and reinvest savings in strategies that can reduce recidivism and improve public safety. Throughout the process, the state received intensive technical assistance from the Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center, in partnership with The Pew Charitable Trusts and the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). With continued support, Kansas leaders have been working to implement this legislation and track the impact of the new policies. This report reflects on the progress Kansas has made to date and the continued efforts that are necessary to meet the state's goals. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2015. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 25, 2015 at: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/JusticeReinvestmentInKansas.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/JusticeReinvestmentInKansas.pdf Shelf Number: 136877 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentOffender SupervisionPrisoner ReentryProbationProbationers |
Author: Lofstrom, Magnus Title: Public Safety Realignment and Crime Rates in California Summary: Public safety realignment substantially reduced the state's prison population. Between 2011 and 2012, property crime increased in California as a result of this policy change. Auto theft increased most dramatically, by 14.8 percent-or about 24,000 per year. By contrast, violent crime rates did not appear to be affected Details: San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2013. 24p., app. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2015 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1213MLR.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1213MLR.pdf Shelf Number: 136924 Keywords: Crime RatesCriminal Justice PolicyPrison OvercrowdingPrisonersPrisonsPublic Safety Realignment |
Author: Lofstrom, Magnus Title: Public Safety Realignment: Impacts So Far Summary: Prompted by a federal court order to reduce prison overcrowding, California's 2011 historic public safety realignment shifted many correctional responsibilities for lower-level felons from the state to counties. The reform was premised on the idea that locals can do a better job, and it was hoped that incarceration rates and corrections costs would fall. At the same time, critics predicted crime would rise. Four years since its implementation, realignment has made several important impacts: Realignment significantly reduced the prison population, but the state did not reach the court-mandated population target until after the passage of Proposition 47 in November 2014, which reduced penalties for many property and drug offenses. The reform challenged county jails and probation departments by making them responsible for a greater number of offenders with a broader range of backgrounds and needs. The county jail population did not rise nearly as much as the prison population fell, reducing the total number of people incarcerated in California. Realignment did not increase violent crime, but auto thefts rose. Research so far shows no dramatic change in recidivism rates. State corrections spending remains high, but there is reason to believe expenditures could drop in the future. Realignment has largely been successful, but the state and county correctional systems face significant challenges. The state needs to regain control of prison medical care, which is now in the hands of a federal receiver. And the state and counties together must make progress in reducing stubbornly high recidivism rates. Details: San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2015. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2015 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_915MLR.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_915MLR.pdf Shelf Number: 136925 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCrime RatesCriminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice Reform Jails Prison Overcrowding Public Safety Realignment Recidivism |
Author: Wald, Johanna Title: Adjusting Our Focus: Current Communication Practices and Patterns in the Criminal Justice Sector Summary: This report presents results from a Field Frame Analysis of influential organizations in the criminal justice reform field. It is informed by, and a part of, a larger multi-year project being conducted by the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice at Harvard Law School (CHHIRJ) and the FrameWorks Institute. The long-term goal of this project is to develop more effective ways to communicate about the challenges facing America's criminal justice system and the reforms necessary to make it more just and equitable. The project aims to provide criminal justice experts and progressive reform advocates with tools and strategic recommendations they can use to reframe their public communications for broad public understanding and support. This means moving public perceptions and policy-making away from ineffective "tough on crime" tactics that over-emphasize policing, prosecution, and prisons in favor of greater investments in programs that address the underlying social and economic issues fueling cycles of incarceration. A Field Frame Analysis captures the patterns of communications that organizations within a given sector use to frame issues. It allows researchers to map networks of influential organizations within the field and identify the ways in which these organizations publicly discuss the issues. Since influential organizations act as "gatekeepers" for the field and shape the direction of programs and policies, the ways in which they communicate - language, frames, topic priorities and word choices - have direct implications on whether and how an issue will be more widely adopted and on the solutions that are proposed. Moreover, as reframing strategies and tools emerge, the Field Frame Analysis allows us to assess how recommendations can best be aligned with existing practices and how the field's discourse and communication practices may need to change in order to accommodate the reframing process. Specifically, this study uses a Field Frame Analysis to address the following questions: Reform Agenda: What are the most prominent issues on the reform agenda of influential organizations in the criminal justice field? Conceptions of Crime and the Criminal Justice System: How do prominent and influential organizations in the criminal justice field frame crime and the criminal justice system? Implications: What are the field-level constraints and opportunities for reframing public safety and criminal justice reform? Details: Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute, 2014. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 11, 2016 at: http://www.charleshamiltonhouston.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/CHHIRJ-Report-Adjusting-Our-Focus2.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.charleshamiltonhouston.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/CHHIRJ-Report-Adjusting-Our-Focus2.pdf Shelf Number: 137443 Keywords: CommunicationsCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformPublic OpinionPublic Safety |
Author: Putt, Judy Title: The implementation of Indigenous crime and justice policies and programs in Australia: issues and challenge Summary: This brief considers issues to do with implementation of policies and programs, and identifies strategies or frameworks that can be adopted to improve the implementation of Indigenous crime and justice policies and programs. It provides an overview of key polices and strategies being implemented in Australia that aim to address Indigenous crime and justice issues, and examines four specific key initiatives to highlight the kinds of issues encountered: the Northern Territory Emergency Response; night or community patrols; Aboriginal sentencing courts; and mens behaviour change programs. The theoretical and practical factors are brought together in a framework which can be used to evaluate and increase successful implementation across a range of programs. Details: Canberra: Indigenous Justice Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Criminology, 2015. Source: Internet Resource: Brief 18: Accessed February 23, 2016 at: http://www.indigenousjustice.gov.au/briefs/brief018.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.indigenousjustice.gov.au/briefs/brief018.pdf Shelf Number: 137939 Keywords: AboriginalsCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ProgramsIndigenous PeoplesMinorities and Crime |
Author: Mizell, Jill Title: An Overview of Public Opinion and Discourse on Criminal Justice Issues Summary: This series of reports from The Opportunity Agenda describes the American public discourse on crime, the criminal justice system, and criminal justice reform. It examines years of public opinion research, mainstream media coverage, and social media content. And it incorporates the input of leaders working in the field of criminal justice reform. Taken together, this body of work is intended to help reform leaders, organizations, and allies to build public support for effective solutions. It also provides useful insights for journalists, news outlets, and commentators who cover-or could cover-this important subject. Involvement in the criminal justice system can be an opportunity-ending event in people's lives. The "tough on crime" policies of the past generation-the "war on drugs," mandatory minimum sentences, "three-strikes laws" and the like-have negatively affected millions of people. In addition to the individuals who are arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated for long periods under harsh sentencing laws, families and whole communities face racial profiling, mass incarceration, and barriers to re-entry after release from prison. These impediments to opportunity are not spread evenly across the U.S. population. Racial and class bias infects the criminal justice system at every point, from arrest, through prosecution, sentencing, incarceration, and release. Today, the nation's experiment with mass incarceration is being scrutinized and critiqued as never before, and criminal justice reform is on the public policy agenda. Our scan of legislative activity across the country indicates that reforms are taking place in red and blue states alike. As one reform leader put it: The fiscal crisis that so many states find themselves in has created a space for dialogue about reducing the use of incarceration to solve social issues...This is a very conservative city in a conservative state, and I'm seeing opportunity after opportunity to work across the political spectrum to get criminal justice reform done. States are rethinking "zero tolerance" school discipline policies, which often are responsible for racially discriminatory suspensions and "the school to prison pipeline." Municipalities are adopting "ban the box" policies to remove barriers to the hiring and licensing of people with criminal records. States are adopting "Justice Reinvestment" strategies to reduce corrections costs and reinvest the savings in programs that improve public safety, such as education, public health and job training. At the federal level, the Justice Department has launched its "Smart on Crime" review to bring more fairness to the federal criminal justice system. And the trend towards treating drug use as a public health, rather than a criminal matter is accelerating throughout the country. Whether based on fiscal concerns about the vast public resources devoted to arresting, prosecuting, and locking up so many people or on concerns about fairness and racial equity, more and more members of the public and their political representatives are questioning whether the harsh penalties adopted at both the state and federal levels over the past 40 years are accomplishing what they were intended to accomplish: protecting the public. A growing number of Americans is realizing that the vast majority of people in prison will be released back into the community with few, if any, opportunities to change their lives for the better and that this does not bode well for the nation as a whole. In spite of these advances, however, the United States has a long way to go before its criminal justice system lives up to constitutional and human rights norms, and creating the political will to bring about real reform is a heavy lift. Elected leaders still fear being labeled "soft on crime," and the organized opposition, led by district attorney associations and the private corrections industry, is working hard to block sentencing and other reforms, arguing that public safety is at risk. Most Americans hear about crime through their local television stations, where "if it bleeds, it leads" is still the rule. Increased fear of crime can derail any progress made by the criminal justice reform movement unless the public is "inoculated" with a deeper understanding of the causes of and solutions to crime. Details: New York: The Opportunity Agenda, 2014. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 24, 2016 at: http://opportunityagenda.org/files/field_file/2014.08.23-CriminalJusticeReport-FINAL_0.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://opportunityagenda.org/files/field_file/2014.08.23-CriminalJusticeReport-FINAL_0.pdf Shelf Number: 137956 Keywords: Costs of criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentMedia Public AttitudesPublic Opinion |
Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office Title: Efficiency in the Criminal Justice System Summary: The criminal justice system (the system) in England and Wales investigates, tries, punishes and rehabilitates people who are convicted or suspected of committing a crime. In the year to September 2015, 1.7 million offences were dealt with through the courts. The system is made up of police forces, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and other bodies who can bring prosecutions, HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS), alleged victims, witnesses, victims and witness services, prisons, probation services, the judiciary and lawyers. Defendants and convicted offenders are key participants. The system has evolved over time, has no single 'owner' and has been subject to regular change and reform. It incorporates a wide range of bodies with different functions and accountabilities. For it to work as efficiently as possible, each part must complete its work on time and get it right first time. There are many factors that make it difficult for the system to work efficiently. These include: - independence: organisations need a degree of independence from each other to ensure that the system is just, but each part depends on the others to allow it to function. There is a national Criminal Justice Board, which oversees the system as a whole; - discretion: the defendant and the witnesses can make choices about pleas or giving evidence, and can change their mind at short notice; - demand: although overall levels of crime are falling, the number of more complex court cases (for example, sex offences, complex fraud and terrorism) has increased; and - working practices: some parts of the system are still heavily paper-based, and all parts are operating under reduced budgets. Measuring whether the criminal justice system is achieving its many objectives is not always straightforward. Some objectives may conflict (for example, possible tension between punishing and rehabilitating offenders). Even when an objective is clear, for example ensuring that people who are guilty of an offence are convicted and innocent people are not, there is no simple way to know whether the system is achieving it. There are some elements of performance that can be measured more easily, including whether the different parts of the system are getting it right first time, whether cases are starting when they are supposed to and whether cases are being progressed reasonably quickly. Details: London: NAO, 2016. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: HC 852, Session 2015-16: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Efficiency-in-the-criminal-justice-system.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Efficiency-in-the-criminal-justice-system.pdf Shelf Number: 137999 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice System |
Author: Comack, Elizabeth Title: The Impact of the Harper Government's "Tough on Crime" Strategy: Hearing from Frontline Workers Summary: Crime rates in Canada have been steadily dropping for over a decade, while prison populations have been increasing in recent years. Commentators have attributed this disconnection between falling crime rates and increasing incarceration numbers to the Harper government's "tough on crime" strategy. Since coming to power in 2006, the Harper government has implemented a host of legislative and policy changes designed to "tackle crime," "hold offenders accountable," and "make communities safer." At the same time, the government also enacted significant budget cuts that have affected the ability of the correctional system to uphold its mandate. To learn about the on-the-ground impact of these changes, we interviewed 16 frontline workers in two provinces (Manitoba and Ontario). In their capacities as correctional, parole, and probation officers, and as prisoner advocates, counsellors, and support workers in the community, these workers have a cumulative record of over 200 years of knowledge and experience to draw on. Details: Winnipeg, MB: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Manitoba, 2015. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 21, 2016 at: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/Manitoba%20Office/2015/09/Tough%20on%20Crime%20WEB.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/Manitoba%20Office/2015/09/Tough%20on%20Crime%20WEB.pdf Shelf Number: 138358 Keywords: Crime RatesCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice Reform |
Author: Great Britain. Home Office Title: Modern Crime Prevention Strategy Summary: Crime has fallen rapidly over the last twenty years, as the graph on page 5 shows. It has done so in spite of economic shocks, changes in levels of employment, and evolving behaviours around drug and alcohol use, technology and social norms. As it has fallen, crime has changed: while traditional high volume crimes like burglary and street violence have more than halved, previously 'hidden' crimes like child sexual abuse, rape and domestic violence have all become more visible, if not more frequent, and there is growing evidence of the scale of online fraud and cyber crime. There are a variety of reasons for this sustained fall, but the reduction can be attributed in large part to better preventative action to stop crimes from happening in the first place. For example, Government efforts to rank vehicles by their susceptibility to theft allowed the public to make well informed decisions around purchasing better secured cars1; the expansion of drug treatment has helped reduce the numbers of heroin and crack cocaine users, who commit over 40% of acquisitive crimes2; and better home security has substantially reduced the number of burglaries.3 The evidence is clear: where Government, law enforcement, businesses and the public work together on prevention we can deliver significant and sustained cuts in certain crimes. That is good news for victims and communities and it makes clear economic sense too. Now, as crime changes, this strategy recognises the importance of strong evidence as the basis for a modern approach to crime prevention. It applies the lessons from past successes along with new research into the challenges we now face. It addresses what the evidence suggests "where Government, law enforcement, businesses and the public work together on prevention we can deliver significant and sustained cuts in certain crimes" are the six key drivers of crime - opportunity, character, the effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System, profit, drugs and alcohol - and a wide variety of crime types. It sets out proposals to make crime harder to commit, less appealing for criminals, and more unlikely in certain communities, situations or in relation to certain products. It brings to bear the latest techniques - from behavioural economics to data analytics - and coordinates a wide variety of partners, many outside Government's direct control. It aims to articulate, quite simply, what crime prevention means in 2016. Details: London: Home Office, 2016. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 23, 2016 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/509831/6.1770_Modern_Crime_Prevention_Strategy_final_WEB_version.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/509831/6.1770_Modern_Crime_Prevention_Strategy_final_WEB_version.pdf Shelf Number: 138387 Keywords: Crime PreventionCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice Reform |
Author: Abarbanel, Sara Title: Realigning the Revolving Door: An Analysis of California Counties' AB109 2011-2012 Implementation plans Summary: On April 5, 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law AB 109, the "2011 Realignment Legislation Addressing Public Safety" ("Realignment), which dramatically shifted responsibility from the state to the counties for tens of thousands of offenders. The state was in an unprecedented financial crisis, and recent budget deficits had forced legislators to make tough decisions that included cutting spending not only in the criminal justice system, but in education and other social services as well. Not only that, but just a few weeks before the bill's signing, the United States Supreme Court had upheld a lower court's judgment ordering California to reduce its prison population by approximately 40,000 persons within two years. California, and its prison system, had to make big changes. Details: Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Law School Criminal Justice Center, 2013. 129p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed arch 24, 2016 at: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/183091/doc/slspublic/Realigning%20the%20Revolving%20Door%20with%20updates%20for%2058%20counties%20080113.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/183091/doc/slspublic/Realigning%20the%20Revolving%20Door%20with%20updates%20for%2058%20counties%20080113.pdf Shelf Number: 131263 Keywords: California RealignmentCorrectional AdministrationCosts of CorrectionsCriminal Justice PolicyPrisons |
Author: Council of Economic Advisors Title: Economic Perspectives on Incarceration and the Criminal Justice System Summary: Calls for criminal justice reform have been mounting in recent years, in large part due to the extraordinarily high levels of incarceration in the United States. Today, the incarcerated population is 4.5 times larger than in 1980, with approximately 2.2 million people in the United States behind bars, including individuals in Federal and State prisons as well as local jails. The push for reform comes from many angles, from the high financial cost of maintaining current levels of incarceration to the humanitarian consequences of detaining more individuals than any other country. Economic analysis is a useful lens for understanding the costs, benefits, and consequences of incarceration and other criminal justice policies. In this report, we first examine historical growth in criminal justice enforcement and incarceration along with its causes. We then develop a general framework for evaluating criminal justice policy, weighing its crime-reducing benefits against its direct government costs and indirect costs for individuals, families, and communities. Finally, we describe the Administration's holistic approach to criminal justice reform through policies that impact the community, the cell block, and the courtroom. Details: Washington DC: U.S. Executive Office of the President, 2016. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 26, 2016 at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20160423_cea_incarceration_criminal_justice.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20160423_cea_incarceration_criminal_justice.pdf Shelf Number: 138815 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisCosts of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformEconomics of CrimePrisons |
Author: Caudill, Jonathan W. Title: Navigating the Storm: An Empirical Assessment of the Local Effects of California's Criminal Justice Realignment Summary: October 1st of 2014 marked the third-year implementation anniversary of California's Criminal Justice Realignment (AB 109) legislation. California's AB 109 realigned sentencing options for certain non-violent, non-sexual, and non-serious felony offenses, precluding incarceration in state prison. This less punishment, more rehabilitation sentencing structure shifted correctional supervision to county criminal justice systems (namely, county jails and probation departments) across the State. Along with this widespread jurisdictional decentralization, came many concerns regarding the impact of such a dramatic shift in correctional supervision. Reported here are the results of a three-year evaluation that uniquely included both quantitative and qualitative research methods to assess the impact of AB 109 on Butte County criminal justice organizations. First examined is the change in workload for the District Attorney's Office, focusing on outcomes such as the number of case filings by specific offense categories, failure to appear charge accumulation, and total number of charges over time. Second, this report demonstrates through comparison of recidivism outcomes of pre-AB 109 offenders to recidivism outcomes of post-AB 109 offenders a continuity of supervision during the implementation of Realignment. Results here also highlight factors that increased the likelihood of new arrests and/or probation violations for probation offenders. The empirical work then turns to a small cohort of Post-Release Community Supervision (PCS) offenders. These PCS offenders were tracked for three years to better understand their recidivism outcomes and impact on the local criminal justice system. Their cumulative impact on the jail and overall recidivism was assessed through exploring their total number of times entering the county jail, the proportion of those bookings that turned into formalized charges, and the proportion of those charges that ultimately became convictions. Finally, the report presents findings from two qualitative studies: the level of service orientation across supervision organizations and offenders' perceptions of the utility of home visits' Details: Chico, CA: California State University, Chico, 2015. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 8, 2016 at: https://www.csuchico.edu/pols/documents/Navigating%20the%20storm%20three%20years%20after%20109.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.csuchico.edu/pols/documents/Navigating%20the%20storm%20three%20years%20after%20109.pdf Shelf Number: 139318 Keywords: Community SupervisionCommunity-Based CorrectionsCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformProbationersPublic Safety RealignmentRecidivism |
Author: National Governor's Association Title: A Governor's Guide to Criminal Justice Summary: Governors play a critical role in ensuring public safety. As the state's chief executive, they are responsible for setting public safety priorities for their administration and identifying policies and programs to achieve them. Further, they oversee the state agencies responsible for implementing those policies and programs, such as corrections, state police, and juvenile justice. To help them define and achieve their priorities, governors rely on expertise and support from a core team of advisors including policy staff, legal counsel, and cabinet secretaries. Those criminal justice policy advisors serve as a primary source of information and play an integral role in the development of state policy. They provide guidance on best practices, help develop effective strategies for achieving policy objectives, coordinate agency actions, engage communities and stakeholders, allocate resources, and evaluate effectiveness. For nearly 15 years, the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) has supported a network of governors' criminal justice policy advisors with the goal of improving how justice and public safety policy decisions are made within states. The NGA Center provides them a trusted forum where they can learn best practices, receive technical assistance, and connect with and learn from their peers across the country. As part of its ongoing effort to support that network, the NGA Center has developed A Governor's Guide to Criminal Justice. This guide: 1. Provides an overview of governors' roles and responsibilities as they relate to public safety; 2. Examines the key components that make up a state's criminal justice system and explains the interplay between state, local, and federal functions; 3. Explores budgetary aspects of criminal justice systems; 4. Defines evidence-based practices and examines their role in achieving policy objectives; and 5. Identifies ways that data can be used to drive policy, ensure accountability, and improve public safety. Details: National Governor's Association, 2016. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 11, 2016 at: http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/2016/1601GovernorsGuideCriminalJustice.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/2016/1601GovernorsGuideCriminalJustice.pdf Shelf Number: 139592 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems |
Author: Justice Policy Institute Title: Defining Violence: Reducing Incarceration by Rethinking America's Approach to Violence Summary: While the national conversation and policy reforms have focused on reducing the incarceration of people convicted of nonviolent offenses, just under half the people in prison have been convicted of a violent crime. In Defining Violence, JPI says it's impossible the U.S. will be able to lower its incarceration rate significantly without changing how the justice system treats violent crimes. Defining Violence surveys the current debate in state legislatures and Congress on criminal justice reform, noting where justice reform proposals have been mired down in debates over what constitutes a violent crime, how justice systems treat violent crimes, and how these debates have made it challenging to making lasting justice reform possible. To address this complicated issue, we need to rethink how the justice system responds to violent crimes, starting with how these crimes and behaviors are defined, and how that affects prison populations. Who defines a behavior as violent, how the justice system treats these behaviors, and whether the approach to violent crime makes us safer needs to be scrutinized if we are ever going to make meaningful reductions in the use of incarceration. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2016. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 26, 2016 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/jpi_definingviolence_final_report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/jpi_definingviolence_final_report.pdf Shelf Number: 140039 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice Reform Violence Violent Crime |
Author: Cohen, Mark A. Title: The The 'Cost of Crime' and Benefit-Cost Analysis of Criminal Justice Policy: Understanding and Improving Upon the State-of-the-Art Summary: The use of benefit-cost analyses by criminal justice researchers has slowly been increasing over the past 30 years. While still in its infancy, benefit-cost analyses of criminal justice policies have recently moved from the academic arena to actual use by policy makers. The growing use of benefit-cost analysis in crime policy tends to be lauded by economists; however, criminologists and legal scholars are less than unanimous in their views. A recent issue of Criminology and Public Policy on the "Role of the Cost-of-Crime Literature," highlights this controversy. Two main themes can be distilled from critiques of the literature: first, the considerable uncertainty that exists in cost and benefit estimates; and second, the fact that important social costs are not being taken into account in current models. A related critique is that current methodologies to estimate the cost of crime are affected by income; bringing with it a concern that criminal justice policies based on a benefit-cost analysis will favor the rich. This research note addresses these broad questions about the role of benefit-cost analysis in the criminal justice policy arena and attempts to clear up some misunderstandings on the methodologies used to estimate the cost of crime. I also highlight some of the most important gaps in the literature for those interested in helping to improve the state-of-the-art in estimating the "cost of crime." Perhaps equally important, I hope to demystify benefit-cost analysis and unmask it for what it really is an important tool that can help policy makers systematically and transparently assess and compare options with the goal of making better policy decisions. Details: Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, 2016. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 13, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2832944 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2832944 Shelf Number: 147935 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisCosts of CrimeCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice Policy |
Author: Indianapolis Congregation Action Network Title: The People's Agenda for Ending Mass Incarceration and Mass Criminalization in Marion County Summary: Marion County has a long history of overly aggressive policing and prosecution strategies that have entangled far too many Black and Latino men and women in the criminal justice system, without making the community safer. County officials have long failed to follow best practices for preventing violence, diverting people out of the criminal justice system, and reducing the number of people behind bars, - Between 1985 and 2014 the per capita jail population in Marion County doubled, from 1.1 to 2.14 people incarcerated per 1,000 residents. - The number of women incarcerated increased by 145% between 1985 and 2014. - Extraordinarily high rates of incarceration are concentrated in a small number of zip codes with high Black and Latino populations - Blacks in Marion County are 3.1 times more likely to be in jail than Whites. - Unlike most other counties, Marion fails to transparently report basic data on the Annual Survey of Jails, including the number of inmates in county jails who have not been convicted of any crime, as well as the racial demographics of the jail population. - Many people found innocent or whose charges are ultimately dismissed, are spending long periods of time in jail in Marion County, More than 44% of people who had their charges dismissed or were found innocent spent more than 30 days behind bars, with more than 5 percent spending more than 6 months. These figures are extraordinarily high. Marion County's elected officials are responsible for the safety and wellbeing of all people in the county. But historically they have pursued policies that cycle large number of Black and Latino men and women through the criminal justice system and effectively criminalize whole communities. Mayor Hogsett's public recognition that the criminal justice system in Marion County is broken and his commitment to make major policy changes in this area, represents an important opportunity to improve life in Indianapolis for all residents. Details: Indianapolis: Indianapolis Congregation Action Network, 2016. 82p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 14, 2016 at: http://www.indycan.org/resources/document/Indycan_Peoples-Agenda-to-End-Mass-Incarcertion-in-Marion-County_Final2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.indycan.org/resources/document/Indycan_Peoples-Agenda-to-End-Mass-Incarcertion-in-Marion-County_Final2016.pdf Shelf Number: 147870 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformMass Incarceration |
Author: Pew Charitable Trusts Title: Missouri Policy Shortens Probation and parole Terms, Protects Public Safety. Summary: In 2012, Missouri established an "earned compliance credits" policy that allows individuals to shorten their time on probation or parole by 30 days for every full calendar month that they comply with the conditions of their sentences. Credits are available only to those who were convicted of lower-level felonies and have been under community supervision for at least two years. The Pew Charitable Trusts evaluated the policy and found that in the first three years, more than 36,000 probationers and parolees reduced their supervision terms by an average of 14 months. As a result, the state's supervised population fell 18 percent, driving down caseloads for probation and parole officers. The law had no evident negative impact on public safety: Those who earned credits were subsequently convicted of new crimes at the same rate as those discharged from supervision before the policy went into effect. Details: Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2016. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2016 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2016/08/missouri_policy_shortens_probation_and_parole_terms_protects_public_safety.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2016/08/missouri_policy_shortens_probation_and_parole_terms_protects_public_safety.pdf Shelf Number: 147920 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformEarned CreditsParoleProbation |
Author: Enns, Peter K. Title: The Great Recession and State Criminal Justice Policy: Do Economic Hard Times Matter? Summary: Although the United States still imprisons a higher proportion of its population than any country in the world, in recent years, the decades-long trend of increasingly punitive criminal justice policies and a growing prison population has subsided. Changes unimaginable ten years ago, such as the decriminalization of certain low-level drug offenses, the closing of prisons, and a decline in the overall prison population have occurred. To what extent did the Great Recession influences these shifts? To answer these questions, we focus on state spending on corrections (i.e., spending on prisons, jails, and parole offices) and state incarceration rates. Because state correctional facilities house the overwhelming majority of those incarcerated in the United States, states offer a critical window into mass incarceration. States are also central to understanding the link between economic conditions and criminal justice outcomes. Most states have balanced budget requirements, which means that states cannot carry a deficit from year-to-year. If a bad economic climate leads to less state revenue, something must be cut—and large corrections budgets would be one candidate for reduction. Consistent with this expectation, we do find a relationship between state economic conditions and state expenditures on corrections. We do not, however, find evidence that the Great Recession spurred this relationship. In fact, our analysis suggests that changes in crime rates and the public's punitiveness have been the fundamental factors in recent state criminal justice outcomes. Details: New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2015. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 11, 2016 at: http://www.russellsage.org/sites/default/files/Recession_Enns_Criminal.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.russellsage.org/sites/default/files/Recession_Enns_Criminal.pdf Shelf Number: 146685 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PolicyEconomic Conditions and CrimeEconomics and CrimeRecession |
Author: Bird, Mia Title: Funding Public Safety Realignment Summary: California's recent public safety realignment transferred substantial authority and funds from the state to the counties to manage lower-level felon populations. The success or failure of this experiment will have profound implications throughout the state, beyond just the realm of public safety. If counties are able to handle these new populations and improve upon the state's record of reducing recidivism, the results could include declining crime rates, lower-cost supervision of offenders, and the liberation of state resources to devote to other concerns. If the counties' efforts are insufficient or misdirected, crime rates could stagnate or grow worse, prompting more costly measures such as jail capacity expansion or more intensive supervision, while also shifting the prison overcrowding problem from the state to the county level with all of the attendant implications for county budget priorities. Each count'’s experience with realignment will depend, in part, on whether it has sufficient resources to carry out its plan. That is the subject of this report: the state's provision of realignment funds to the counties, the changing allocations of those funds among the counties, and our own proposal for a funding allocation model to use in the future. Our aim is to illuminate the development of the initial and current funding models, to carefully consider their key elements and their shortcomings, and to propose a new model that addresses these shortcomings. We begin with an examination of the state's mechanism for funding public safety realignment, including the overall funding level, state revenue sources, and the categories of state funding streams. We then turn to our main topic—the allocation of realignment funds across counties. We explain the initial model developed by the Realignment Allocation Committee to determine the share of total funding for realignment that each county would receive. The Year 1 model allocated funding based primarily on the projected increase in counties' offender populations that realignment would induce. The committee balanced the model somewhat by also considering each county’s estimated overall adult population and the county’s success in reducing returns to prison for probation revocations under SB 678. However, concerns emerged among some county officials that this model rewarded counties with high pre-realignment prison use. In the Year 2–3 model, the committee attempted to address that concern by introducing greater flexibility into the formula—as a result, counties with low levels of state prison use prior to realignment received relatively large increases in their allocations. Nonetheless, questions about the fairness and efficacy of the allocation persist as the committee continues to work on the development of a permanent allocation model. We argue that the ideal components of such a model must include differences across counties in the burden of realignment, differences in the capacities of counties to manage their realignment populations, and the inclusion of recidivism reduction bonuses to incentivize state goals. Finally, as a practical consideration, we recognize that developing and using such a funding model requires access to appropriate, high-quality data. To this end, we identify publicly available data to measure these components and use them to calculate recommended allocation shares, which we compare with the allocations from previous years' models. Our proposed Year 4 model consists of a base allocation, adjustments for county characteristics, and incentive bonuses for reductions in recidivism. We believe that our model will prove useful to policymakers—not only as they develop their Year 4 strategies for distributing realignment allocations to the counties, but also as a sound foundation for building a permanent allocation model. Details: Sacramento: Public Policy Institute of California, 2013. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 17, 2016 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1113MBR.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1113MBR.pdf Shelf Number: 144944 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformPublic Safety realignment |
Author: Tiry, Emily Title: Road Map to Pretrial Reforms: Profile Analysis of New Hampshire's Pretrial Defendant Population Summary: This report details an effort in New Hampshire to adopt evidence-based policy and practice for pretrial release decision-making. Many states have introduced changes to improve pretrial release decision-making in recent decades. As the first step toward implementing pretrial reforms in New Hampshire, the current study examines the characteristics of the pretrial defendant population, identifies data gaps and limitations, and presents a road map for developing a validated pretrial risk assessment tool. The population analysis findings suggest that the pretrial defendant population in New Hampshire is largely demographically homogenous across counties, but counties vary in their charging, bail-setting, and data collection practices. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2016. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 14, 2016 at: http://www.urban.org/research/publication/road-map-pretrial-reforms/view/full_report Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/research/publication/road-map-pretrial-reforms/view/full_report Shelf Number: 144886 Keywords: BailCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformPretrial DetentionPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Henrichson, Christian Title: Using Cost-Benefit Analysis for Justice Policymaking Summary: Justice policymakers must make tough decisions with limited resources. Any number of investments, whether in law enforcement, corrections, probation—or even programs outside the justice system, such as early childhood education—can promote public safety. The critical question is which choices produce the greatest benefits. Increasingly, government officials and other decision makers are turning to cost-benefit analysis (CBA)—an economic tool that compares the costs of programs with the benefits they deliver—to help weigh their options. But justice-related cost-benefit studies can be complicated, technical, and hard to understand, making it easy for people to misinterpret their findings and overlook critical information that can aid their decisions. This white paper was written for a broad range of readers, including elected officials and their staff, policymakers, justice agency personnel, and service providers. It is meant to help people make sense of justice CBAs even if they have little interest or expertise in examining the details of a cost-benefit study. The paper draws on the experience of policymakers and practitioners, as well as CBA experts and researchers, to explain: what CBA is, how it’s applied to justice policies and programs, and how it differs from other economic tools; how to assess the overall strengths and weaknesses of a cost-benefit study; what potential pitfalls to avoid when interpreting cost-benefit results; what information beyond the bottom-line results to pay attention to in a CBA; and how CBA fits within larger policy, planning, and decision-making processes. Readers can use this paper to help them know what to look for in a justice-related CBA, understand what cost-benefit results mean, and use those results to inform their decisions. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2014. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 30, 2017 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/using-cost-benefit-analysis-for-justice-policymaking/legacy_downloads/using-cost-benefit-analysis-for-justice-policymaking.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/using-cost-benefit-analysis-for-justice-policymaking/legacy_downloads/using-cost-benefit-analysis-for-justice-policymaking.pdf Shelf Number: 147339 Keywords: Cost-Benefit Analysis Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Policy |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in North Dakota: Policy Framework Summary: Over the past decade, the number of people in North Dakota’s prisons and jails, on probation, and on parole has increased, and the state and county governments have spent tens of millions of dollars expanding the capacity of existing correctional facilities and building new facilities to accommodate this growth. Unless action is taken, the prison population is projected to grow by 36 percent by FY2022 at a cost of $115 million to accommodate the projected growth. To address these challenges, Governor Jack Dalrymple, Chief Justice Gerald VandeWalle, Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem, Senate Majority Leader Rich Wardner, House Majority Leader Al Carlson, Senate Minority Leader Mac Schneider, House Minority Leader Kenton Onstad, and Legislative Management Chairman Raymond Holmberg requested intensive technical assistance from The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center with support from The Pew Charitable Trusts and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance to use a data-driven justice reinvestment approach to help the state reduce the corrections population, contain corrections spending, and reinvest a portion of the savings in strategies that can reduce recidivism and increase public safety. The Incarceration Issues Committee—which included stakeholders from all three branches of government—worked with CSG Justice Center staff to review analyses and develop policy options that will curb prison population growth by reducing the number of people in prison who have committed lower-level felony offenses and who have violated the conditions of their supervision. These policies will also ensure that people with serious behavioral health needs and those assessed as being at a high risk of reoffending receive effective post-release supervision programming, and treatment as necessary. By implementing these proposed policies, the state will avert a minimum of $63.8 million by 2022 in costs for the contract beds that would be necessary to accommodate the projected prison population growth, and will be able to reinvest those savings in strategies that can reduce recidivism and increase public safety. In September 2016, the Incarceration Issues Committee approved a policy draft containing components of the justice reinvestment policy framework, and in November 2016, the Legislative Management committee voted the bill to the legislative assembly for introduction in the House. Details: New York: Council of State Government Justice Center, 2017. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 10, 2017 at: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/JR-in-ND_Policy-Framework_2.7.17.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/JR-in-ND_Policy-Framework_2.7.17.pdf Shelf Number: 147298 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformJustice Reinvestment |
Author: Shaw, Mark Title: Governing Safer Cities: Strategies for a Globalised World. A Framework to Guide Urban Policy-Makers and Practioners Summary: The security challenges of individual cities are increasingly a result of the intersection between local vulnerabilities and illicit flows from across national borders. States as a whole are affected by the destabilising effects of these flows of illicit commodities and the associated challenges of organised crime, corruption and terrorism. These phenomena are undercutting good governance and the rule of law, threatening security, development and peoples' life chances. But with two-thirds of the current world population expected to reside in cities by 2030, these challenges are and will continue to be particularly acute in cities across the globe. As the UNODC Global Study on Homicide (2011 and 2013) has shown, many urban areas have higher rates of homicide - a useful proxy for levels of violence more generally - than the national average; cities being the source of both greater levels of risk as well as opportunities for crime prevention and responses. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Goal 16) recognises that reducing conflict, crime, violence, discrimination, and ensuring the rule of law, inclusion and good governance, are key elements of people's well-being and essential for securing sustainable development. The 2030 Agenda also explicitly highlights the promotion of safe, inclusive and resilient cities (Goal 11). This must be achieved through equitable development, safeguarded by fair, humane and effective crime prevention and criminal justice systems as a central component of the rule of law. The Sustainable Development Goals and the New Urban Agenda adopted during Habitat III in Quito, provide a new impetus to the work of countries and the international community at large to develop inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable cities. Although a considerable amount of research has already been carried out in this area, there is a need to clarify how global illicit flows and organised crime impact on local communities, particularly given their rapid evolution in the current context. Building on the work that has already been done in the field of crime prevention and urban safety, as well as drawing from detailed case studies from a number of cities across the world, and the input of a globally representative group of experts, this framework provides policymakers and practitioners with a new approach to safety in cities, taking into account how transnational organised crime and illicit flows exploit and exacerbate local vulnerabilities. It recognises that while many of the responsibilities for providing citizens with security lie with national governments, city administrations do have a key role to play in identifying crime risks and vulnerabilities and ensuring that safety and security policies are tailored to meet local needs, including by involving communities and other relevant non-state actors. Details: Vienna: United national Office on Drugs and Crime, 2017. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 16, 2017 at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/SaferCities.pdf Year: 2016 Country: International URL: https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/SaferCities.pdf Shelf Number: 146281 Keywords: Crime PreventionCriminal Justice PolicyUrban AreasUrban Areas and Crime |
Author: Arment, Christian Title: Is Incarceration Still the Answer: The Impact of Current Policies & Possible Alternatives Summary: The criminal justice system is tasked with protecting the public from crime but Americans are conflicted about the best way to deter criminal behavior, protect the public and provide justice for victims. There are two different intellectual strands which are the foundation of the criminal justice system: one focuses on rehabilitation while the other emphasizes punishment as a means of deterring criminal behavior. The deterrence model has been the most popular in the US. This brief reviews current research which assesses, and generally finds deficient, present criminal justice policies. It also examines the unintended consequences – both budgetary and social – of contemporary incarceration policies. It concludes with a discussion of policy options that could enhance the effectiveness of the criminal justice system, including alternative sentencing for nonviolent offenders and the expanded use of evidence-based community reentry programs. Details: Columbia, MO: University of Missouri, Institute of Public Policy, Harry S. Truman School of Public Affairs, 2011. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Report 01-2011: Accessed February 20, 2017 at: https://ipp.missouri.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/06/is_incarceration_still_the_answer.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://ipp.missouri.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/06/is_incarceration_still_the_answer.pdf Shelf Number: 146690 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCriminal Justice PolicyImprisonment |
Author: National Council on the Administration of Justice Title: Criminal Justice System in Kenya: An Audit. Understanding pre-trial detention in respect to case flow management and conditions of detention Summary: It is without a doubt that Criminal Justice System has undergone tremendous transformation in the recent past. The transformation process was further affirmed in the provisions of the 2010 Constitution. However, a few challenges persist that predispose the Criminal Justice System against the weak and indigent in our society. This is the first time in our history that our Criminal Justice System has been comprehensively audited, issues systematically documented and published. The National Council on Administration of Justice (NCAJ) commissioned the Audit on 15th May, 2015 in fulfillment of its mandate to ensure a coordinated, efficient, effective and consultative approach in the administration of justice and reform of the justice system pursuant to section 34 of the Judicial Service Act (No. 1 of 2011). The Audit led by a multi sectorial steering committee of the NCAJ took a period of eighteen (18) months to be concluded. The subsequent findings contained in this Audit were validated by respective justice agencies and are therefore are a conformation of the status and recommendations that should be taken forward to address conditions of pre-trial detention and case-flow management. This Audit sought to provide a comprehensive analysis of the Criminal Justice System towards providing recommendations to strengthen service delivery and policy reforms in Kenya. This Audit gives an independent and objective view of the material aspects of the Criminal Justice System. Subjecting the Criminal Justice System to this Audit was consistent with Kenya's development blueprint, Vision 2030, and the National Values and Principles of Governance set out in Article10 of the Constitution of Kenya. The Audit identifies institutions bearing a constitutional mandate to deliver justice to Kenyans/persons living in Kenya and areas that require further reforms within the Justice sector. Key findings of the Audit confirm that Kenya's Criminal Justice System is largely skewed against the poor. It is an indictment of a system that is expected to guarantee justice to people from all walks of life, including all forms of vulnerabilities. The Audit found that more poor people are arrested, charged and sent to prison as compared to the well to do. It was an interesting finding that economic driven and social disturbance offences which are rated as petty; such as offences relating to lack of business licenses, being drunk and disorderly and creating disturbance form 70% of cases processed through the justice system. A major concern as per the findings was that, serious offences such as organized crimes, capital offences and sexual offences were found to have the highest rate of acquittal and withdrawals. This Audit therefore should stir deep reflections by the NCAJ to capitalize on the Audit recommendations for institutional reforms in our policing and prosecution systems. Our new Constitutional order demands; transparency, accountability, participation and inclusiveness in governance. The Audit report will go a long way in supporting the implementation of this new order by providing a framework for policy direction for the NCAJ institutions in implementing their core mandates. Through this effort, Kenya therefore joins other Nations in establishing a baseline for improved service delivery within the Criminal Justice System Details: Nairobi: NCDJ; Kimlani, Legal Resources Foundation Trust; Resource Oriented Development Initiatives (RODI): 2016. 380p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 20, 2017 at: http://kenyalaw.org/kenyalawblog/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Criminal_Justice_Report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Kenya URL: http://kenyalaw.org/kenyalawblog/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Criminal_Justice_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 144508 Keywords: Criminal Justice Administration Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice Systems |
Author: Anadi, Ngozi Obeta Title: The Impact of Three Strikes Laws on Crime Rates in the United States: A Panel Data Analysis Summary: Persistent high levels of crime is of an increasing concern to the general public because of the fear of loss of lives and property. One of the tools used by government to deal with high crime rates is the enactment of stricter policies and regulations. Between 1993 and 1995, many states in the United States enacted Three-Strikes Legislation, increasing prison terms for repeat offenders with the hope of reducing crime rates and promoting public safety. However, whether these laws are effective or not is subject to debate. Relying on the fixed effects estimation and state-level panel data from the 50 states of the United States (U.S) for the period 1980-2009, this study assesses the impact of three-strikes laws on crime rates in the U.S, controlling the effects of demographic and economic variables. The results show that three strikes laws have an overall statistically insignificant positive relationship with crime rates. The deterrent and incapacitation effects of three strikes laws disappear the moment other factors are controlled. Details: Baton Rouge, LA: Southern University and A&M College, 2011. 114p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed May 6, 2017 at: http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/914372134.html?FMT=ABS Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/914372134.html?FMT=ABS Shelf Number: 145342 Keywords: Crime RatesCriminal Justice PolicyRepeat OffendersThree Strikes Laws |
Author: Pew Charitable Trusts Title: How States Engage in Evidence-Based Policymaking: A National Assessment Summary: Evidence-based policymaking is the systematic use of findings from program evaluations and outcome analyses ("evidence") to guide government policy and funding decisions. By focusing limited resources on public services and programs that have been shown to produce positive results, governments can expand their investments in more cost-effective options, consider reducing funding for ineffective programs, and improve the outcomes of services funded by taxpayer dollars. While the term "evidence-based policymaking" is growing in popularity in state capitols, there is limited information about the extent to which states employ the approach. This report seeks to address this gap by: 1) identifying six distinct actions that states can use to incorporate research findings into their decisions, 2) assessing the prevalence and level of these actions within four human service policy areas across 50 states and the District of Columbia, and 3) categorizing each state based on the final results. The study finds: - Five states lead the way in evidence-based policymaking. - Washington, Utah, Minnesota, Connecticut, and Oregon are leading in evidence-based policymaking by developing processes and tools that use evidence to inform policy and budget decisions across the areas examined. - 11 states show established levels of evidence-based policymaking by pursuing more actions than most states but either not as frequently or in as advanced a manner as the leading states. - 27 states and the District of Columbia demonstrate modest engagement in this work, pursuing actions less frequently and in less advanced ways. - Seven states are trailing, taking very few evidence-based policymaking actions. - Most states have taken some evidence-based policymaking actions in at least one human service policy area, but advanced application is less common. - Defining levels of evidence can allow state leaders to distinguish proven programs from those that have not been evaluated. Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia have defined at least one level of evidence, such as "evidence-based"; 23 of the 40 have created an advanced definition that distinguishes multiple levels of rigor, such as "evidence-based" and "promising." - Inventorying state programs can help governments to manage available resources strategically. Fortynine states and the District have produced an inventory of state-funded programs; 29 of the 50 have created an advanced inventory that classifies programs by evidence of effectiveness. - Comparing program costs and benefits would allow policymakers to weigh the costs of public programs against the outcomes and economic returns they deliver. Seventeen states have conducted cost-benefit analyses; 16 of the 17 have created an advanced analysis that monetizes benefits to calculate return on investment. - Reporting outcomes and program effectiveness can help policymakers identify which investments are generating positive results and use this information to better prioritize and direct funds. Forty-one states and the District reported or required key outcome data during the fiscal year 2013-17 budget cycles; 13 of the 42 have created advanced budget materials that include findings from program evaluations. - Targeting funding to evidence-based programs, such as through a grant or contract, can help states implement and expand these proven approaches. Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia have such a funding mechanism; five of the 50 have created advanced mechanisms to dedicate at least 50 percent of program funds for a specific policy area toward these initiatives. - Requiring action through state law, which includes administrative codes, executive orders, and statutes, can help states sustain support for evidence-based policymaking. Thirty-three states and the District have developed a framework of laws to support one or more of the five advanced actions listed above in at least one policy area; 11 of the 34 states have created an advanced framework of laws to support two or more advanced actions. Details: Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2017. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2017 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2017/01/how_states_engage_in_evidence_based_policymaking.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2017/01/how_states_engage_in_evidence_based_policymaking.pdf Shelf Number: 145349 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformEvidence-Based PoliciesEvidence-Based Practices |
Author: Halloran, Nick Title: The NSW Prison Population Simulation Model: A policy analysis tool Summary: Aim: To describe a simulation model of the NSW prison system and demonstrate its utility as a tool for examining the effects of changes to the criminal justice system that influence the number of prisoners in custody Method: The model consists of four states (bail, remand, custody and parole) and a set of parameters governing flows into and out of those states as well as lengths of stay in each state. Data for the model were sourced from police, court and correctional databases. Results: The prison system is extremely sensitive to changes in the percentage of persons refused bail. A one percentage point change in the percentage of persons refused bail by a court increases the remand population by 7.66 per cent, the sentenced prisoner population by 6.03 per cent and the parole population by 6.15 per cent. Conclusion: It is feasible to build a simple model of the prison system which is easy to maintain but nonetheless useful in analysing the likely consequences of changes in arrest, bail and sentencing policy. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2017. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice Number 203; Accessed May 10, 2017 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/Report-2017-NSW-Prison-Population-Simulation-Model-CJB203.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/Report-2017-NSW-Prison-Population-Simulation-Model-CJB203.pdf Shelf Number: 145396 Keywords: BailCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice SystemsInmatesParolePrison Population |
Author: Rogers, Ashley Title: The First Fifty: A Study of Summary: Assembly Bill 109 ("AB 109") and the subsequent amending legislation (collectively, "The 2011 Realignment Legislation Addressing Public Safety" or "Realignment") seismically shifted the way California structures and manages its criminal justice system. Effective October 1, 2011, AB 109 redefined more than 500 felonies and "realigned" responsibility for the incarceration and supervision of a significant population of specified adult felony offenders from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") to county-based corrections programs. In brief, AB 109 altered both sentencing and post-prison supervision for the newly statutorily classified "non-serious, non-violent, non-sex" offenses and offenders. While the legislation is comprehensive and complex, two major groups are affected by these changes. First, offenders convicted of qualifying felonies are now incarcerated in county jails instead of in state prisons. Second - and perhaps most critically-released prisoners who would have previously been placed on state parole but now qualify as so-called "non-non-non" offenders are diverted to the supervision of county probation departments under "Post Release Community Supervision ("PRCS"). Because of its import and controversial surrounding it, the latter population-prisoners released under PRCS-is the focus of this paper. On October 1, 2011, California counties assumed responsibility for supervising approximately 60,000 offenders from 33 California prisons who qualified for PRCS. While some have remained neutral, responses to the PRCS component of AB 109 have been largely as passionate as they have been mixed. Supporters note that, because the offenders were to be released into counties anyway, PRCS simply shifts who will do the supervising. They assert that the shift is more technical than substantive: because the offenders to be supervised by PRCS were incarcerated for a relatively low-level "non-non-non" felony, probation offers should be equipped to handle the risks and needs of a population nearly identical to those they already supervise. Prior to AB 109's implementation, Governor Brown expressed confidence that counties were prepared to assume the targeted populations, adding, "It's bold, it's difficult and it will continuously change as we learn from experience. But we can't sit still and let the courts release 30,000 serious prisoners. We have to do something, and this is the most-viable plan that I've been able to put together." Critics of AB 109, however, assert with equal confidence that the plan as it relates to PRCS is far from "viable." They emphasize that under AB 109, offenders are classified only by the present committed offense, meaning that it is possible that a person with a history of violent, serious, or sex offenses-or even a lengthy criminal history-may technically qualify as a "non-non-non" offender under AB 109. The shift in supervisory responsibility from parole to probation departments becomes important. Probation officers, critics argue, may be ill-equipped to address the great risks and significant needs of a potentially a dramatically different population than that contemplated by the legislature. Indeed, several counties have asserted that they are unprepared and under-financed, and some are even bracing for a spike in crime. (See "Part II: The Counties' Responses to AB 109" for further discussion.) b. Scope of the Paper What is missing from these charged debates, however, is data. Speculation about the population is insufficient to spur any informed changes, and a lack of data could lead to rash, harmful decisions based on isolated incidents or conjecture alone. Answers to critical questions - Who are these offenders to be supervised by PRCS? What are their risks? What are their needs? - must be answered. This paper examines these questions in the context of one county - Santa Clara County. In this paper, we first provide an overview of the history and legislative rationale of AB 109, the provisions governing the scope of PRCS, and the CDCR's procedures regarding the determination screening process and data provided to the counties ("Part I: The Legislative Intent of AB 109 and Post-Release Community Supervision"). Second, we provide further context on the various responses to AB 109 as depicted in the media ("Part II: The Counties' Responses to AB 109"). Third, we answer the aforementioned questions (Who are these offenders? What are their risks? What are their needs?) by analyzing the demographics, risks, and needs of the first fifty offenders released to Santa Clara County under PRCS ("Part III: Describing the PRCS Population: The First Fifty Released in Santa Clara"). We then compare the results of the study with the legislative intent and the counties' various responses and predictions ("Part IV: Comparing the First Fifty to the Legislative Intent and Counties' Responses"). Finally, we offer an analysis of the limitations of the study ("Part V: Limitations of the Study") and offer conclusions on the implications of the findings ("Conclusion: Implications of the Study"). Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, 2012. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Draft report: Accessed May 13, 2017 at: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/183091/doc/slspublic/The_First_Fifty_Rogers.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/183091/doc/slspublic/The_First_Fifty_Rogers.pdf Shelf Number: 131360 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCommunity SupervisionCriminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice Reform Prison Overcrowding Probation Public Safety Realignment Recidivism |
Author: Piehl, Anne Morrison Title: Putting Time Limits on the Punitiveness of the Criminal Justice System Summary: Over the past 30 years, both the incarcerated population and the limitations placed on those with criminal records have dramatically expanded. The consequences of a criminal conviction can last long beyond any imposed sentence, but current efforts to reduce the punitiveness of the criminal justice system tend to focus on sentencing reform rather than consequences for those who have already served prison terms. I offer three principles for reform efforts aimed at reducing criminal justice punitiveness. First, negative consequences of prior criminal convictions should be targeted to enhance public safety. Second, processes for time-limiting information about convictions should be implemented. Finally, decreases in the severity of criminal punishment should generally be automatically and retroactively applied. Reform efforts that follow these principles can better target society's resources toward people with the highest risk of offending. Details: Washington, DC: Brookings Institute, Hamilton Project, 2016. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Memo 2016-03: Accessed September 14, 2017 at: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/es_20161021_reducing_punitiveness_piehl.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/es_20161021_reducing_punitiveness_piehl.pdf Shelf Number: 147239 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformPunishmentSentencing Reform |
Author: MacDonald, Scott Title: Justice System Change Initiative-Riverside County Jail Utilization Report Summary: The Justice System Change Initiative. This report presents information developed by a collaboration between the Riverside County Sheriff's Office and CA Fwd's Justice System Change Initiative (J-SCI). California Forward is an independent, bipartisan governance reform organization that promotes political, fiscal and organizational reform to improve the impact of public programs. J-SCI was developed to build the capacity and skills of counties to transform justice systems through data-driven policy and fiscal decisions. The scope of this initiative includes identifying more effective, evidence-based services that support individual behavior change; as well as promoting new justice system policies and practices that better align resources to promote public safety. J-SCI provides a team of subject matter experts to initiate a collaborative review of current policy and practice. This includes the collection and analysis of complex cross-system data; facilitation of the local discussion regarding data findings and opportunities for more effective practice; and, the development of local systems and capacity for ongoing analysis and policy development. The result is a sustainable, locally driven review, analysis and reform that provides local policymakers greater choice and confidence in the priorities and programs they oversee. The Purpose of the Jail Utilization Study. Incarceration represents one of the costliest elements of the criminal justice system. Nationwide, the use of incarceration to respond to crime increased more than fivefold in recent decades, with the accompanying costs of building and staffing this tremendous expansion of jail and prison capacity. Now that a bipartisan consensus is mounting to reexamine this trend, it becomes clear that most communities lack meaningful data about their jails. Who is in jail? How did they get there? How long do they stay and how often do they return? Without knowing some of these basic facts, leaders are understandably reluctant to endorse changes. Riverside county jails have faced federally imposed population caps based on significant crowding issues. Jail expansion and construction has not been sufficient to address the growth of the jail population and leaders in Riverside understand that building new jail space, alone will not be sufficient to address these problems. Understanding jail utilization is an essential starting point, and provides an initial map for system change. The J-SCI team worked in collaboration with system stakeholders in Riverside County to compile and analyze data regarding local jail utilization. After an initial kickoff in October 2014, the J-SCI executive steering committee showed interest in better understanding the county's use of one of their most limited and expensive resources. Working directly with the jail's staff, JSCI team developed a data analysis approach that engaged county experts in the jail's Headcount Management Unit (HMU) to better understand the issues and opportunities facing the jail. The resulting data was analyzed to identify key areas for further study and consideration. The observations and recommendations of this report are a starting point for further examination and discussion among all system partners. The end discussions will be policy recommendations that are founded in data and supported by a broad consensus. The Structure of this Report. To help organize the key variables of the jail population, this report characterizes the major pathways or "doors" into and out of jail. The "front door" entries are those entering jail as the result of a new crime; the "side door" are those already in the system who enter for probation violations, warrants, court commitments or factors other than arrest for a new law violation. Jail exits are the "back door," and those who recidivate are described as being in the "revolving door." The data also characterizes some of the trends inside the doors: the average daily population, jail programming, the key variable of length of stay, and the calculation of total "bed days" consumed by individuals. Finally, two areas of special concern are addressed: jail use by mentally ill offenders and the impact of Proposition 47. The report concludes with observations and recommendations for further study and policy consideration. result of such Details: Sacramento: California Forward, 2015. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 15, 2017 at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/COMIO/Uploadfile/pdfs/2016/Sept14/JusticeSystemChangeInitiativeReport.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/COMIO/Uploadfile/pdfs/2016/Sept14/JusticeSystemChangeInitiativeReport.pdf Shelf Number: 147342 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformJail InmatesJailsProposition 47 |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Costs of Crime: Experts Report Challenges Estimating Costs and Suggest Improvements to Better Inform Policy Decisions Summary: Crime and society's response to it pose significant costs to the United States. The Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that federal, state, and local governments collectively spent over $280 billion in fiscal year 2012 (adjusted to 2016 dollars) on criminal justice programs such as police protection, the court system, and incarceration. There are also many other financial and nonfinancial effects of crime that researchers consider when estimating the total costs of crime in the United States. These can include tangible costs such as replacing damaged property or medical care to treat victims' injuries, and intangible costs such as changes in people's behavior to avoid crime, among many other costs. Researchers have estimated varying annual costs of crime, including totals of $690 billion, $1.57 trillion, and $3.41 trillion, adjusted to 2016 dollars. GAO was asked to examine issues related to estimating the costs of crime committed in the United States. This report examines: 1) how experts estimate the cost of crime in the United States, and the challenges they face, and 2) the actions experts have considered in order to improve the understanding and use of cost of crime research. To answer these questions, GAO worked with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to identify and survey experts in fields associated with estimating the cost of crime, including criminology, economics, public health, public policy, and statistics, among others. GAO also reviewed 27 studies that estimated the cost of crime in the United States, published from 1996 to 2017. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2017. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-17-732: Accessed September 27, 2017 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/687353.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/687353.pdf Shelf Number: 147464 Keywords: Costs of Crime Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Expenditures Criminal Justice Policy |
Author: Baldwin, Molly Title: From Evidence-Based Practices to a Comprehensive Intervention Model for High-Risk Young Men: The Story of Roca Summary: Researchers of criminal behavior are taking a more data-driven approach to community corrections. Rather than focusing solely on professional experience or anecdotal successes - key factors that often drive public policy in social services - they are identifying evidence-based practices that rely on empirical research and produce measurable outcomes. The challenge for providers is to bridge the gap between theoretical best practices and practicable intervention models that reduce recidivism rates and keep communities safe. One organization that is finding success in bridging this gap is Massachusetts-based Roca, Inc. Established in 1988, Roca has worked with high-risk young people in various communities across Massachusetts. Roca has served thousands of young men and women facing multiple challenges, including young parents, immigrants, youth involved in gangs, and other at-risk young people. Along the way, though, Roca witnessed a troubling reality: Despite its commitment to help youth stay out of harm's way, and the fact that individuals were attending programming in large numbers and the organization was thriving, the same individuals were in trouble again days, weeks, or months later. As a result, Roca leadership grew less confident that it was doing more good than harm. It started searching for a different path. Around this time, meta-analysis of practices in the field, conducted by the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI) at Community Resources for Justice and the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) in 2002, identified a set of eight methods proven successful in reducing recidivism. Roca found the move toward evidence-based practices (EBP) refreshing: These practices were based on specific principles that had been proven successful based on data, rather than anecdotes, and the idea that some interventions work significantly better than others was appealing. The challenge, though, was to develop a comprehensive intervention model based on these practices and to transform the organizational culture into one that embraces data and evidence. Over more than a decade, Roca has undergone tremendous changes. The organization has rigorously examined its practices, collected and analyzed data, changed its interactions with other institutions, and incorporated only those practices that were proven effective. The result of these efforts is Roca's High-Risk Young Men Intervention Model - a four-year, non-mandated model dedicated to serving 17- to 24-year-old men at the highest risk of future incarceration. The Model was implemented in 2011 and now operates in four sites, serving 21 communities across Massachusetts. Roca's rigorous data track ing allows the organization to measure its success in reducing recidivism and increasing employment among high-risk young men. Roca's baseline is the existing criminal justice system outcomes pertaining to young adults: In Massachusetts, 76 percent of the 18- to 24-year-olds released from Houses of Corrections are rearraigned within three years (Mosehauer et al., 2016), and nationally, 78 percent of those released from state or federal prison at the ages of 18 to 24 are rearrested within three years (Schiraldi, Western, and Bradner, 2015). Roca's outcomes are dramatically different. Roca retains 84 percent of participants annually, despite the fact that these are high-risk young people who are not ready, willing, or able to participate in programming. After completing the first two years of the program, participants significantly reduce their criminal behaviors: 93 percent are not rearrested, 95 percent are not reincarcerated, and 88 percent of those on probation comply with their conditions. In addition, graduates demonstrate significant employment gains: Although 83 percent of participants come to Roca with no employment history, 84 percent of those enrolled longer than 21 months are placed in a job; 92 percent of them keep the job longer than three months, and 87 percent keep it for six months or more. This paper focuses on the gap between research- and theory-based practices and a fully functioning intervention model, and how Roca has worked to bridge this gap and achieve the above-mentioned outcomes. Part I reviews the eight evidence-based practices in community corrections as identified by CJI and NIC. Part II explores how Roca learned of these principles and how it worked internally to integrate them and develop its Intervention Model. Part III explains Roca's Intervention Model and revisits the eight evidence-based practices, explaining how each one is implemented in the Model. The conclusion draws some lessons from Roca's work with evidence-based practices and suggests that Roca's Model is an alternative to traditional community corrections. Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, 2017. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: New Thinking in Community Corrections: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/wiener/programs/pcj/files/NTCC_Evidence-based_practices_final_laser_8-28-17_508_v2.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/wiener/programs/pcj/files/NTCC_Evidence-based_practices_final_laser_8-28-17_508_v2.pdf Shelf Number: 147679 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsCriminal Justice PolicyEvidence-Based PracticesRecidivismYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: National Reentry Resource Center Title: Making People's Transition from Prison and Jail to the Community Safe and Successful: A Snapshot of National Progress in Reentry Summary: One of the most significant developments in criminal justice policy over the past 15 years has been a fundamental shift in thinking about the primary purpose of prisons and jails. Not long ago, elected officials saw the principal responsibility of corrections administrators as providing for the care, custody, and control of people who are incarcerated. Today, there is widespread agreement that government has a responsibility to ensure that when people are released to the community from jail or prison, they are less likely to reoffend than they were at the start of their sentence. Although no single event is associated with this change in philosophy, a key milestone stands out. Late in 2004, Congress set to work on the Second Chance Act, which the House and Senate later passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Elected officials in the nation's capital had made clear that ensuring people's safe and successful transition from prison and jail to the community wasn't a partisan issue, but simply good, smart policy - because anything short of that objective compromises public safety, wastes taxpayer dollars, and undermines the well-being and stability of communities. A decade since the passage of the Second Chance Act, it is time to consider a critical question: Have local, state, and federal efforts to improve reentry outcomes for people under correctional supervision yielded sufficient results? This brief highlights five ways in which state and local governments' approaches to reentry and recidivism reduction are fundamentally different today than they were a decade and a half ago. Details: New York: National Reentry Resource Center, 2017. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 7, 2017 at: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/6.8.18_A-Snapshot-of-National-Progress-in-Reentry1.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/6.8.18_A-Snapshot-of-National-Progress-in-Reentry1.pdf Shelf Number: 148048 Keywords: Criminal Justice policyPrisoner ReentryPrisoner RehabilitationRecidivism |
Author: Luna, Erik, ed. Title: Reforming Criminal Justice Volume 1: Introduction and Criminalization Summary: Reforming Criminal Justice is a four-volume report authored and reviewed by leading scholars in criminal law and other disciplines. The contributions to this report describe the need for reform in particular areas of American criminal justice and suggest policy recommendations to achieve such change. The ultimate goal is to fortify reform efforts currently afoot in the United States with the research and analysis of respected academics. In this way, the report hopes to increase the likelihood of success when worthwhile reforms are debated, put to a vote or otherwise considered for action, and implemented in the criminal justice system. The following offers a brief overview of the project. Volume 1 Table of Contents - Criminal Justice Reform: An Introduction Clint Bolick, Justice, Supreme Court of Arizona, and Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution - The Changing Politics of Crime and the Future of Mass Incarceration David Cole, Hon. George J. Mitchell Professor in Law and Public Policy, Georgetown University, and National Legal Director for the American Civil Liberties Union - Overcriminalization Douglas Husak, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Rutgers University - Overfederalization Stephen F. Smith, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame - Misdemeanors Alexandra Natapoff, Professor of Law, University of California, Irvine - Drug Prohibition and Violence Jeffrey A. Miron, Senior Lecturer and Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Economics, Harvard University, and Director of Economic Studies, Cato Institute - Marijuana Legalization Alex Kreit, Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Criminal Law and Policy, Thomas Jefferson School of Law - Sexual Offenses Robert Weisberg, Edwin E. Huddleson, Jr. Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, Stanford University - Firearms and Violence Franklin E. Zimring, William G. Simon Professor of Law and Director of the Criminal Justice Research Program, University of California, Berkeley - Gangs Scott H. Decker, Foundation Professor of Criminology & Criminal Justice and Director of the Center for Public Criminology, Arizona State University - Criminalizing Immigration Jennifer M. Chacon, Professor of Law, University of California, Irvine - Extraterritoral Jurisdiction Julie Rose O'Sullivan, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center - Mental Disorder and Criminal Justice Stephen J. Morse, Ferdinand Wakeman Hubbell Professor of Law, Professor of Psychology and Law in Psychiatry, and Associate Director of the Center for Neuroscience and Society, University of Pennsylvania - Juvenile Justice Barry C. Feld, Centennial Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Minnesota Details: Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State University, 2017. 428p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 18, 2017 at: http://academyforjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Reforming-Criminal-Justice_Vol_1.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://academyforjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Reforming-Criminal-Justice_Vol_1.pdf Shelf Number: 148246 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice System |
Author: Grawert, Ames C. Title: Criminal Justice One Year Into the Trump Administration Summary: In his Inaugural Address on Jan. 20, 2017, President Donald Trump pledged to stem the tide of what he called "American carnage."1 The administration carried out that plan with sweeping changes to long-standing Justice Department policies, covering everything from marijuana to private prisons. Some of those changes were explored in a previous Brennan Center report, Criminal Justice in President Trump's First 100 Days.2 Now, at the end of the president's first year in office, this analysis examines the administration's actions to date and their consequences. It first documents significant changes in federal criminal justice policy implemented over the last year. It then describes what impact can be seen to date. Finally, it indicates what to expect moving forward. All told, President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions have already left a significant mark on the Justice Department. They have used short memoranda or subtle changes in enforcement strategy to quietly undo much of President Barack Obama's criminal justice reform legacy. In its place, they have built a more draconian vision of law enforcement, centered around immigration. While many of these changes occurred without drawing public scrutiny, consequences have already begun to materialize in areas such as immigration enforcement. Over the next three years, these shifts could cause the federal prison population to begin increasing again, reversing what small progress had been made to reduce federal over-incarceration. Further, the administration's words and deeds on criminal justice could disrupt bipartisan efforts to build a fairer, more effective justice system at the state and local levels. Details: New York: Brennan Center for Justice, 2018. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 5, 2018 at: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Criminal_Justice_One_Year_Into_the_Trump_Administration_0.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Criminal_Justice_One_Year_Into_the_Trump_Administration_0.pdf Shelf Number: 149696 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice Reform |
Author: Eisen, Lauren-Brooke Title: Criminal Justice: An Election Agenda for Candidates, Activists, and Legislators Summary: This report sets forth an affirmative agenda to end mass incarceration in America. The task requires efforts from both federal and state lawmakers. Today, criminal justice reform stands on a knife's edge. After decades of rising incarceration and ever more obvious consequences, a powerful bipartisan movement has emerged. It recognizes that harsh prison policies are not needed to keep our country safe. Now that extraordinary bipartisan consensus is challenged by the Trump administration, through inflammatory rhetoric and unwise action. Only an affirmative move to continue reform can keep the progress going. The United States has less than five percent of the world's population, but nearly one quarter of its prisoners. About 2.1 million people are incarcerated in this country, the vast majority in state and local facilities. Mass incarceration contributes significantly to the poverty rate. It is inequitable, placing a disproportionate burden on communities of color. It is wildly expensive, in some cases costing more to keep an 18-year-old in prison than it would to send him to Harvard. Our criminal justice system costs $270 billion annually, yet does not produce commensurate public safety benefits. Research conclusively shows that high levels of imprisonment are simply not necessary to protect communities. About four out of every ten prisoners are incarcerated with little public safety justification. In fact, 27 states have reduced both imprisonment and crime in the last decade. A group of over 200 police chiefs, prosecutors, and sheriffs has formed, whose founding principles state: "We do not believe that public safety is served by a return to tactics that are overly punitive without strong purpose . . . we cannot incarcerate our way to safety." In cities, states, and at the federal level, Republicans and Democrats have joined this effort. They recognize that today's public safety challenges demand new and innovative politics rooted in science and based on what works. The opioid epidemic, mass shootings, and cyber-crime all require modern responses that do not repeat mistakes of the past. Crime is no longer a wedge issue, and voters desire reform. A 2017 poll from the Charles Koch Institute reveals that 81 percent of Trump voters consider criminal justice reform important. Another, from Republican pollster Robert Blizzard, finds that 87 percent of Americans agree that nonviolent offenders should be sanctioned with alternatives to incarceration. And according to a 2017 ACLU poll, 71 percent of Americans support reducing the prison population - including 50 percent of Trump voters. But the politician with the loudest megaphone has chosen a different, destructive approach. Donald Trump, and his Attorney General Jeff Sessions, falsely insist there is a national crime wave, portraying a country besieged by crime, drugs, and terrorism - "American carnage," as he called it in his inaugural address. But, crime in the United States remains at historic lows. While violent crime and murder did increase in 2015 and 2016, new data show crime and violence declining again in 2017. The national murder rate is approximately half of what it was at its 1991 peak. Those who seek to use fear of crime for electoral gain are not just wrong on the statistics; they are also wrong on the politics. Now, to continue the progress that has been made, it is up to candidates running for office to boldly advance policy solutions backed by facts, not fear. This report offers reforms that would keep crime low, while significantly reducing incarceration. Most solutions can be enacted through federal or state legislation. While most of the prison population is under control of state officials, federal policy matters too. The federal government's prison population is larger than that of any state. Further, Washington defines the national political conversation on criminal justice reform. And although states vary somewhat in their approach to criminal justice, they struggle with similar challenges. The state solutions in this report are broadly written as "models" that can be adapted. Steps to take include: Eliminating Financial Incentives for Incarceration Enacting Sentencing Reform Passing Sensible Marijuana Reform Improving Law Enforcement Responding to the Opioid Crisis Reducing Female Incarceration Details: New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, 2018. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Solutions 2018: Accessed April 5, 2018 at: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Criminal_Justice_An_Election_Agenda_for_Candidates_Activists_and_Legislators%20.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Criminal_Justice_An_Election_Agenda_for_Candidates_Activists_and_Legislators%20.pdf Shelf Number: 149699 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformMass IncarcerationOpioid CrisisSentencing Reform |
Author: Butts, Jeffrey A. Title: Recidivism Reconsidered: Preserving the Community Justice Mission of Community Corrections Summary: Recid iv ism is not a robust measu re of effectiveness for communit y corrections agencies. When used as the sole measure of effectiveness, recidivism misleads policymakers and the public, encourages inappropriate comparisons of dissimilar populations, and focuses policy on negative rather than positive outcomes. Policymakers who focus on recidivism as evidence of justice effectiveness are confusing a complex, bureaucratic indicator of system decision-mak ing w ith a simple measure of individual behavior and rehabilitation. Recidivism is at least in part a gauge of police activ it y and enforcement emphasis and, because of differential policing practices in minority communities, using recidivism as a key measurement may disadvantage communities of color. Relying on recidivism defines the mission of community corrections in law enforcement terms, relieving agencies of their responsibility for other outcomes such as employment, education, and housing. In the following discussion, we describe the logical and practical problems that arise when recidivism is used as the principal outcome measure for community corrections agencies. We recognize that recidivism will always be a feature of justice policy and practice. Recidivism offers a simple and familiar outcome measure for judging the effectiveness of justice interventions. Pointing out the logical flaws of recidivism will not diminish its salience for audiences disinclined to question its utility. Our purpose in this discussion is not to end the use of recidivism as a justice system measure but to illustrate its limits and to encourage the development and use of more suitable measures - namely, positive outcomes related to the complex process of criminal desistance. Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, 2018. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 19, 2018 at: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/wiener/programs/pcj/files/recidivism_reconsidered.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/wiener/programs/pcj/files/recidivism_reconsidered.pdf Shelf Number: 149858 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsCriminal Justice PolicyRecidivism |
Author: Illinois Sentencing Policy Advisory Council Title: A Cost-Benefit Tool for Illinois Criminal Justice Policymakers Summary: In recent years, criminal justice research, including rigorous evaluation of existing programs and policies, has established that recidivism can be reduced through targeted interventions that address the drivers of a person's criminal behavior. These drivers are identified through risk and needs assessment and can be changed with proper programming and services. Programs that reduce the risk that individuals released from prison will commit additional crimes create measureable outcomes in terms of less victimization, lower government costs, and other economic benefits. The critical question for policymakers is: Do the benefits of a program outweigh the costs? Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) answers that question by quantifying and weighing both costs and benefits to determine programs that will produce a sufficient return to warrant the investment of tax dollars. For this report, the Illinois Sentencing Policy Advisory Council (SPAC) used the Illinois Results First cost-benefit model which includes a database of 52 programs in the criminal justice sector that have successfully reduced recidivism over time in a variety of states. SPAC chose nine Illinois programs that are consistent with the programs in the database and for which cost data was available. The model incorporates Illinois-specific system costs incurred by state and local governments, crime trend and recidivism data, and victimization costs established by national research, including the costs to victims of medical expenses, property damage and losses, and lost wages. SPAC's model compares the money spent on programs with the social value of the outcomes produced by that spending to produce a "Consumer Reports" style guide that allows policymakers to do an apples-to-apples comparison of these nine programs. In sum, Illinois can get a better return on investment for taxpayers' dollars by focusing resources on programs with the most benefits and focusing cuts on those with the least benefits. The outcome measure used in the model is a reduction in recidivism. This report is intended to be solely descriptive of the expected outcomes of investing in evidence-based programs that are implemented with fidelity to the evaluated programs and are subject to evaluation. SPAC does not make recommendations, oppose, or support specific policy proposals. SPAC is a statutorily created, independent commission of criminal justice stakeholders that reports to all three branches of government. SPAC is mandated to provide system-wide fiscal impact analysis and provide research and analysis to support implementation of evidence-based practices. Cost-benefit analysis is one tool SPAC is using to weigh alternatives and potential outcomes as measured by lower recidivism rates. This is not a recommendation for specific programs but an informative report to facilitate planning and budgeting. Details: Springfield: SPAC, 2016. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 14, 2018 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/spac/pdf/Illinois_Results_First_Consumer_Reports_072016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/spac/pdf/Illinois_Results_First_Consumer_Reports_072016.pdf Shelf Number: 150532 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PolicyEvidence-Based PracticesRehabilitation Programs |
Author: Johnson, Ben Title: Do Criminal Laws Deter Crime? Deterrence Theory in Criminal Justice Policy: A Primer Summary: This publication discusses criminal deterrence, which is one theory legislators can use to assess possible changes in criminal justice policy. When legislators consider changes to criminal justice policy, they often face the question of whether the changes will prevent people from committing crimes. Legislators in Minnesota may look to other states to see if changes there produced any noticeable effect, but that information may not always present a complete picture. Another tool for legislators is deterrence theory. Deterrence theory was first described in the late 1700s, but received new attention in the 1960s. Academic studies since then have looked at the relationship between the severity of punishment, the certainty that a criminal will be punished, and the speed with which the punishment will be inflicted. Looking at both long-term trends and smaller case studies, research has shed light on behaviors that can be deterred most easily, policy changes that have little deterrent effect, and the types of actions that are most likely to prevent people from committing crimes. For example, research has shown that: crimes involving conscious planning can be more easily deterred than those that relate to addiction or sudden emotions; increases to prison sentences that are already lengthy have little deterrent effect; and policies that increase the likelihood of being caught deter crime more effectively than those that increase punishment. Deterrence theory can help legislators craft and assess policy proposals. Details: St. Paul, MN: Minnesota House Research, 2019. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 18, 2019 at: https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/deterrence.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/deterrence.pdf Shelf Number: 155015 Keywords: Criminal Justice policyCriminal Laws Deterrence Theory |
Author: Felbab-Brown, Vanda Title: AMLO's Security Policy: Creative Ideas, Tough Reality Summary: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -- - Improving public safety, especially reducing Mexico's soaring murder rate, is the toughest challenge of Mexico's new president, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (known as AMLO). - In November 2018, AMLO unveiled his National Peace and Security Plan 2018-2024, describing it as predominantly focused on the roots of insecurity, as opposed to confronting drug trafficking organizations (DTOs). The plan combines anti-corruption measures; economic policies; enhanced human rights protections; ethics reforms; public health, including treatment for drug use and exploration of drug legalization; transitional justice and amnesty for some criminals; and broader peace-building, to include traditional anti-crime measures such as prison reform and security sector reform, plus a new law enforcement force, the National Guard. - Various elements of his announced new security strategy-such as the formation of the National Guard - remain questionable and unclear and are unlikely to reduce violence quickly. - AMLO's proffered security strategy will likely create friction with the United States. Jointly countering fentanyl smuggling, however, could provide one venue of U.S.- Mexico cooperation. Corruption and Mexico's justice system - Combatting corruption is a foundational element of AMLO's security policy, and his administration has adopted a wide set of anti-corruption measures, including highly controversial and questionable ones. - However, AMLO has yet to appoint a dedicated anti-corruption prosecutor, make appointments to the National Anti-Corruption System, and support the 2016 National Anti-Corruption System reform. - AMLO has not broken with politically powerful and immensely corrupt unions, proposing instead to reverse reforms and lay off 70 percent of non-unionized federal workers. - It remains unclear whether AMLO will empower Mexico's civil society-crucial for reducing corruption-or continually define it as his antagonist. - AMLO's administration has not yet focused sufficiently on implementing the judicial reform by properly implementing the new prosecutorial system. - The administration has emphasized minimizing salary differences between public ministries, federal judges, prosecutors, and police officials. The weakness of prosecutors and their lack of cooperation with law enforcement and judges have been key stumbling blocks, keeping prosecution rates abysmally low. However, minimizing salary differences is inadequate. - Deleteriously, AMLO has refused to allow the independent selection of an autonomous attorney general. Focus on brutal crimes instead of drug trafficking groups and rejection of high-value targeting - The AMLO administration suspended focus on DTOs, drug trafficking, and high-value targeting of DTO leaders. Instead, it prioritizes "brutal crimes." But that strategy ignores the fact that key perpetrators of homicides, extortion, and robberies are DTOs. - Large law enforcement deployments to Tijuana and efforts to combat fuel theft have been interpreted by DTOs as direct confrontation. Instead, AMLO should prioritize targeting the most violent criminal groups, while deterring new outbreaks of violence. - The target should be the middle operational layer of a criminal group, seeking to disable the vast majority of the middle layer in one sweep, in order to reduce the group's regeneration capacity. - The Mexican government remains challenged in implementing such a policy by the continual lack of strategic and tactical intelligence in an ever more fragmented, mult-ipolar, and opaque criminal market, and by the continual corruption of Mexico's law enforcement apparatus. The National Guard -- - AMLO has not stopped using the Mexican military for domestic law enforcement. However, he has created a new structure combining military forces with Federal Police forces-The National Guard. - To be completed in three years, the National Guard is to be 150,000-strong. Sent initially to 17 areas with high homicide rates, the first contingent of 50,000 is to start functioning by April 2019. The head of the National Guard is a civilian, but much of the leadership is military.... Details: Washington, DC: Foreign Policy at Brookings Institute, 2019. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 27, 2019 at: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/FP_20190325_mexico_anti-crime.pdf Year: 2019 Country: Mexico URL: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/FP_20190325_mexico_anti-crime.pdf Shelf Number: 155191 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice SystemDrug TraffickingHomicidesNational SecurityPolitical CorruptionPublic SafetySecurity ForcesViolent Crimes |